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.

 

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Its funny that theres so much speculation around evolution.........isn't evolution only a theory? Isn't the bigbang a theory also? Sometimes I think that most of us forget that the bigbang and evolution are not proven...they are only theories nothing else.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ringht_n_wrong
 


As has been explained in every other evolution topic, theory has a different definition in science than the layman definition. A theory is an explanation for observed, factual, phenomena. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanism through which animals evolve. Also, since we're pointing out things that are "only" theories. Gravity is also a theory. So, if theories are so meaningless how do you explain the fact that you aren't floating out into space if gravity is a theory?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ringht_n_wrong
 


A common misconception..

A scientific Theory is one back up by empirical data, observation and fact. Don't let the term "theory" make you think it is just an "idea" based on nothing. Most things in science are "theories", but can be taken as fact as the observations back them up. Things like Laws are for specific things, such as thermodynamics and they thmeselves are based upon Theories.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ringht_n_wrong
Its funny that theres so much speculation around evolution.........isn't evolution only a theory? Isn't the bigbang a theory also? Sometimes I think that most of us forget that the bigbang and evolution are not proven...they are only theories nothing else.

No.
Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory.
We know they both happen.
The theory is just trying to explain WHY they happen.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
1. A thread with the same topic - minus the false sensationalist title - was posed yesterday.

2. People yesterday already pointed out that this story does not disprove evolution - you can write WRONG with all caps as long as you want it won't change a thing.

This study merely redirects attention to what is the driving force of evolution, it does not refute evolution at all, evolution is at the very basis of this study. They merely proposed a shift in attention as to thedriving factors of evolution.

3. Many people smarter than me have already argued that the study is flawed and misconceived - or that at least the language of the article is.

4. It's always entertaining to see the knee-jerk creationist reactions. If arguments fail repetition will do the job, right?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Please dont refer to Jesus as a golden calf. He was a LAMB of God. Not a calf. Making it golden doesnt help matters. Thank you for your cooperation.


There's me thinking he was the bacon-eating son of a whore?

Or am I thinking of Moses?

Argh, there's so many fictional characters that I could choose to abuse it's obscene!!!!

Parallex.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Wow, reams of unsourced, random pictures. I am convinced! You really think I am just going to believe some random pictures, many of which are probably doctored? Do you honestly think that something like this could have been buried without anyone, especially the Black community, shouting about it?

Lets just ignore the genetic data of the thousands of bodies dug up by Archaeologists over the years, shall we? Or current genetic data which links modern Britons, for example, to the same people who inhbaited these islands since before the Romans came?

Or Actual, real artwork from the era, that clearly shows your bogus pictures for what they are? The Bayeux Tapestry, c1066, is an iconic depiction of a battle between the Normans and Anglo-Saxons, showing quite clearly they were all White. Other artwork from the period, well before 1400, shows no hint of a massive black population in Europe. Take Greco-Roman busts and freizes for example.

You claim that one picture up their is Henry VIII coat of arms, but it isn't and what about portraits done of him at the time? What about Elizabeth, his daughter, who was famed for her peraly white skin?

Contemporary accounts from the times often described people, shall we ignore them? There were many choniclers around at the time, describing many persons from the period and not one describes anyone of note in pre-Rennaisance Europe as anything other than what you would expect.

I can post reams of pictures too, you know. Difference is, I can source them. They can be traced to well before 1400, showing quite clearly you are full of it.

It is sad to think you actually believe this tripe. I guess you have such a need to prove Black superiority over White people as some sort of cultural revenge you are seeking to paint us as savages and cultural parasites. Thing is, there are a great many historians of all creeds and not one has thought to even mention this?

Anyhow, this is wayyyyyy off topic, so may I suggest you start a thread of your own and then we can all ignore your insane, racist ramblings, as they deserve to be.

[edit on 25/8/10 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Wise Man
 

Anyhow, this is wayyyyyy off topic, so may I suggest you start a thread of your own and then we can all ignore your insane, racist ramblings, as they deserve to be.

My thoughts EXACTLY!

Back on the OP's topic, ...

I believe A LOT of factors contributed to the evolution of life as it evolved, the strongest survived, the most adaptive survived, the ones who had "space" to survive, the ones who lived in an area where there was FOOD to survive and adapt, and a lot of other factors contributed to how different animals "evolved" to what we see now.

I don't see how you can say only one "factor" in an animals life caused its "evolution".



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I would like to entertain the idea of evolution but i have
trouble beleiving this beautiful boby, perfect in so many ways
not to mention my great mind is merely the product of chance.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


If what you're saying is true, then how come the light skin variant of SLC24A5 originates in Europe around 12,000 years ago? The same very mutation that you pointed to as causing white skin began in Europe, and when one looks at the genetics of Europeans over time, they have the least variation of any sub-group. This is a mutation that started in Europe and has been a dominant trait since that time.

Also, just to play the same game as you. The first humans were white. If you look at any of our closest relatives, such as the chimp, their skin is light and is covered by large amounts of hair. When we first evolved we had a similar physical appearance, but as we lost the hair we needed more melanin to protect us from the sun. This then led to darker skin.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


So then its competition for living space that drives Evolution, its still a form of competition, just a bit different than eat or be eaten. I think that competition still played its part, after all if an organism is very bad at not being eaten or surviving and dies before it can pass on its genes it goes extinct and those genes die out.

Interesting stuff



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 


The human body is far from perfect. It's weak. It's fragile. It has no natural defenses. Our eyesight, hearing, and sense of smell are lousy. The only real blessing we were given was a larger prefrontal cortex. If it weren't for that we would have been exterminated by Neanderthals.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


Here is a part of the Bayeaux Tapestry created around 1070. This particular scene depicts the death of King Harold.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 


I know that the word "hue" means color. However, the prefix hu- seems most likely to be derived from humus which refers to the earth. Therefore, the term human means person of the earth, which is in keeping with many religious origin stories.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
REMINDER


The topic of this thread is Darwin and how a new study argues he may have been wrong.
Off topic posts which derail the topic may be removed.

Thanks for your cooperatio.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wise Man

Please show me evidence of white people in Europe before the Renaissance.
There is none. It was all black people in black ruler-ship while whites lived in the Caucasians mountains.


We have lots of writing from the Romans that describe the people in the lands they were conquering (the British Isles for one) in pretty darn good detail. Note the date of the persons death. Well before the Renaissance.

en.wikipedia.org...


Marcus Antonius Polemon or Antonius Polemon, also known as Polemon of Smyrna or Polemon of Laodicea (name in Greek:ο Μάρκος Αντώνιος Πολέμων, c. 90-144) was a man of sophism who lived in the 2nd century.


en.wikipedia.org...

Pale skin and light hair were described as signs of barbarism by Polemon of Laodicea in his book Physiognomica.[9] Pseudo-Aristotle (a writer using Aristotle's name as a pseudonym)[10] noted differences between Greeks and the people of the north, believing that Greek superiority was visible in their medium skin tone, as opposed to pale northerners and dark southerners and Africans. He claimed that blue eyes were a sign of a cowardly nature, and that they indicated poor eyesight.[11]



Originally posted by Wise Man
The Vikings, Anglo Saxons(Isac's sons), Normans, Byzantine, Celts, Scots, British, Franks, first Knights were all black. Not white.


You know we have people doing genetic studies all over the world to trace gene flow from region to region, right? There isnt a shred of genetic evidence to back your claim.

Those white devils you want to claim stole European history from "blacks" really are the closest surviving thing to the original peoples of Europe. The Neanderthal were there first, but they either died out or we killed them out after we got there.

Granted when what turned into light skinned people first got there, they were probably darker, and time and natural selection favored lighter skin over time, but they did not just suddenly spring out of the Caucasus mountains in the 1500s and take over everything blacks had created or invented and then whited out all their faces in the books.

Thats really the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.

And what an insult to blacks too, if you are seriously arguing that a small band of primitive white people were able to overthrow an established advanced society and remove them completely from the historical record.

Where do you people get this crap? Are you a sociology major?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ringht_n_wrong
Its funny that theres so much speculation around evolution.........isn't evolution only a theory? ...Sometimes I think that most of us forget that the bigbang and evolution are not proven...they are only theories nothing else.


Good grief. We're in the middle of a planetary evolutionary crisis affecting everything from disease-causing microbes to complex organisms, facing the 6th Mass Extinction, and you think evolution is "just a theory"?!?

FYI - Our medicines don't work any more because disease-microbes have evolved to become antibiotic and anti-viral resistant.

How Evolution Works

The Simplest Example of Evolution
The process of evolution acts on an E. coli cell by creating a mutation in the DNA. It is not uncommon for the DNA strand in an E. coli bacterium to get corrupted. An X-ray, a cosmic ray or a stray chemical reaction can change or damage the DNA strand.
...In this example, you can see evolution at work. A random DNA mutation created an E. coli cell that is unique. The cell is unaffected by the antibiotic that kills all of its neighbors.


Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

The salmonella inside eggs recently mutated and evolved to do that - now, they're not just on the outside of the shell and can't be cleaned off.

SALMONELLA EGG RECALL: NEWEST LIST OF EGG BRANDS AFFECTED AND RECALLED

And don't forget, Battling germs that keep getting stronger

Please, at least scan some of the articles. It could save your life.


And btw - I question a LOT about Darwin, but I do NOT question the fact of evolution.







[edit on 25-8-2010 by soficrow]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join