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.

 

Human evolution: A simple calculation indicates that human evolution may have been turbo charged !

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
why would this be a surprise? we have historical evidence in the pyramids. is that not enough? explain to me how humanity goes from nothing to radio, tv, airflight, nucular technology, etc. within a 100 years? it just screams that we have been 'tampered' with as in helped along the way. the question only remains why, how and who.

look we have been around for atleast 200,000 years - 4 million. you're going to tell me that after all that time nothing happens until now? and within a 100 years we can create this technology after all that time of having nothing? bull#. complete bull#.
edit on 26-12-2010 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


OK, 100 years? I say more like 200 years but the point holds true. All that time and nothing and then 100 to 200 years ago things take off like a rocket. The tech starts flowing like a broken fire hydrant.
If we did all that on our own then we should have landed on the moon 10,000 years ago and done have left the planet Earth far behind by now. There just is now way that we jumped that much in tech in a few hundred years when it took us 10' of thousands to 100's thousand of years to show the smallest of jumps.
In the last 100 years we jumped in tech more than we had in the past 100,000 years. It just does not add up.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
(Micro-)evolution is real. But the mutations are NOT random(and really, it's not how people think of it intuitively.) The body adjusts itself according to the environment. By definition, the word "adjust" implies that the mutations are not random, because if they really are random, then all of the mutations(that don't necessarily "fit" the environment) would occur, regardless of the environment you're in.

Evolution is true, but there is a central intelligence, perhaps within the nucleus of each atom, that guides it.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimistPrime
 


Hmm. Not sure how your response to me relates to what I said. But thank you for sharing your thoughts.


soficrow

imho - evolution is constant, and sometimes exceedingly rapid. Like now - we've altered our environment pretty much beyond recognition over the past couple of hundred years. Evolution is accelerating to catch up and help us adapt.



OptimistPrime

Some of the cells of the whole that is existence are sick, and the body will do what it can to fix these broken cells. In order to return the balance there has to be some sort of evolution, whether it sends cells of a different type to destroy the sick cells or make the cells better.


I would say that the "sick" cells are not really sick - just trying to adapt to the changed environment. I'd also say that the original "healthy cells" are NOT healthy, because they can't thrive in the new (changed) environment - they have not evolved to live here, and have to change to survive.

...So the "sick" cells aren't really broken, they're adapting. And the process of adaptation can be painful, but is a necessary part of the evolutionary process.


OptimistPrime

I'm pretty sure the ego of existence loves itself too much to simply destroy those cells, so it will do what it can to fix what is wrong with those cells before it deems necessary to destroy them.


What's wrong is that the organism and its cells are not in synch with the environment. The environment has been changed - now the organism and its cells need to change too, or die.


OptimistPrime

You have to think of existence as the organism to understand what evolution really is.


I tend to think of cells as cells, organisms as organisms and existence as the flux that encompasses it all. But that's just me.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Single celled organisms reproduce once every couple of minutes.

Therefore, genetic mutations were accumulated on the Early Earth, EVERY COUPLE OF MINUTES.

Supercharged Evolution, eh?

This is what happens when you extrapolate from a position of Ignorance.

-Edrick
edit on 26-12-2010 by Edrick because: spelling



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


You're right of course but go easy.

The idea is not completely off target.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


While it is doubtful that the slow accumulation of DNA strands is the only viable possibility for genetic evolution, as I have *repeatedly* been told (without any basis of facts, theories, or logical hypothesises,) by supposedly intelligent members of the average oh-so-smug-because-we-know-it-all-board (i.e. the same people that applaud the oppression and authoritarian regime in schools to better discipline and "teach the right way."), perhaps the accumulation of benevolent DNA strands never occured in a steady pattern at all. As a matter of fact, after the amount of research I've done (which doesn't account for much, so I'm probably just blowing smoke,)
on the evolution of humanity, I'm not sure that it even occured in leaps and bounds, either.

From my viewpoint, I'd say that the escalation of evolution occured in multiple stages, at various speeds, in multiple (sometimes simultaneous) time periods and on several different continents. With travel and exploration gaining momentum, breeding and culture-pollution/interference wrecked pretty much any chances whatsoever for a proper cross-examination. On the other hand, the genetic code for alternate races, genders, etcetera didn't *just* obtain information from other strands at the creation of new strands:
I believe that the human genome has, and will, undergo monumental changes.

Which raises this question:
Are we due for another genetic check-up? It would be wonderful (or terrifying, depending on your point of view,) to discover that, as humans, we not only have the capability to adapt, but to evolve to suit our environment and, quite possibly, cross the precipice between ignorance and creating a new race of individuals altogether.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Consider that the best way to add/change DNA is via viral infection.

You could have eons of "upgrades" added fairly quickly.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Good point. Just think, everytime you visit the doc, you not only get pumped full of the latest toxins, but you'll get a discount if you simply sign forty-three waivers indicating that you agreed to change your own DNA into that of an emu on Tuesdays!

I loathe the doctor's office. So very, very much.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I've always kind of wondered this question...

If most of our planet's natural variety is contributed to random mutations... it seems that these mutations (positive ones, which make up for less than 10% of mutations) would have to happen at an incredible rate to keep up with variation.

However, I think your calculation is somewhat flawed in the fact that I don't think life started out with one of these base pairs of DNA. Life supposedly started off as a single celled organism, which are pretty complicated things in themselves and of which we are made of, so I would say that it is more about the extreme variation caused by genetic mutations rather than the number of base pairs that should be considered.

Either way... the only logical conclusion that I can think of in regards to all the problems about our current "understanding" of evolution is that it is wrong- or severely flawed at best.

I personally like to speculate that evolution happens in great spontaneous leaps, guided by some as of yet undiscovered mechanism... which would account for the giant leaps and falls of species variation in the fossil records.

As for whether or not intelligent design is a part of it, I don't know. But I'll say one thing- If you compare life to a machine... it seems pretty improbable that things like flight and AI could just randomly come out of no where without any guidance.

I guess the point is that life is so complicated in itself that its almost incomprehensible for us to understand how it works.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Just for comparison purposes, how many base pairs do the monkeys have? How about the dogs, cats, etc?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Human evolution: A simple calculation indicates that human evolution may have been turbo charged

Based upon the title I know that this should be in the religious section.

May have been is a faith based statement as it does not have physical proof that is testable and repeatable so there for is a belief.

As for the rest of the article speculation upon assumption.

The rungs of the ladder had to all be in place

you would bleed out before you could have offspring that would have the ability to coagulate their blood

you would die of disease, before you could have offspring that would have an immune system.

The list is endless so no the ladder was all there not bits and pieces coming along at random.

Happenstance only has organization in the minds of evolution



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forsakenthinker
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Good point. Just think, everytime you visit the doc, you not only get pumped full of the latest toxins, but you'll get a discount if you simply sign forty-three waivers indicating that you agreed to change your own DNA into that of an emu on Tuesdays!

I loathe the doctor's office. So very, very much.


I can look back over my life and identify 3-4 major "aha" times, where I became more aware, and felt more insightful. Twice this has happened in my adult life. 1 time i had a Type A flu about 15 years ago. Shortly after i recoevered, i started having startling realizations about the way humans should be, how we should interact.

Then i got a real bad Shingles infection about 12 years ago. I had just been hired as an agent in a call center. 2 months after my recovery (3 months after i started) i was promoted to trainer. I knew next to nothing about computing before i took that job, having never even been on he internet. I came out of training as the top ranked agent in the site. Was promoted shortly after to trainer, training AOL tech support agents. Within 5 years i was running the entire call center. I had never so much as heard of excel, and was in charge of a database, and reporting structure (creating the standard that is used in T-Mobile outsourcers).

In short, i believe that I had an "upload" via these two particular viral infectsions. I was already fairly intelligent, but the added insight gained is all the difference between a minimum wage, entry level person and an executive.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
Supercharged Evolution, eh? This is what happens when you extrapolate from a position of Ignorance.

Though it pains me for historical reasons to admit it, Edrick is quite right.

This is complete and total non-issue. The facts were clearly explained on the very first page in this post by myster0 and this one by Maslo.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
It's funny. In the last fortnight I've encountered two articles by different researchers approaching the subject of jumps in evolution from different perspectives - and now this.

First there was Jay Weidner's essay: "Alchemical Kubrick" - where Jay details, mindblowingly, the Alchemist symbology present in 2001: A Space Odyssey. To summarise, the black monolith in the film is entirely responsible for jumps in mankind's evolution and civilisation. This is what Alchemists and many occults believe (not specifically a black monolith - that just symbolises some extrernal force).

Andrew Collins' The Cygnus Mystery essay (not available online as far as I know) talks about the evidence that cosmic energy from certain stars may have caused periodical jumps in evolution,

And now this thread. It feels as though I (or rather, we) are being sent a message from the cosmos and then opportunities to reinforce that knowledge and information.

So thank you tauristercus, for this thread. Star and flag. I used to be an atheist hellbent on the reality of Darwinian evolution; then I read Jeremy Narby's 'The Cosmic Serpent' and Graham Hancock's 'Supernatural' and felt as though both some form of evolution and some form of creation were in fact true. Now, to be honest, I do believe that a higher cosmic force has strongly influenced the development of man and possibly all life on Earth. It no longer requires an abstract blind faith in an omnipotent bearded man in the sky, but scientific evidence is starting to back it up.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Time in human evolution is always a problem.
Particularly for those of us who admire and support the works of Michael Cremo and like minded researchers.
One of my favorite myths and it must be, regarded by the establishment as an indisputable immutable fact is the 'out of Africa' theory.
Modern humans came out of Africa 50,000 years ago.
Now like the DNA, time has to put this theory into the category of pure politically correct bunkum.
We breed at roughly the rate of 40 generations per thousand years.
40 times 50 (thousand) is 2000.
So according to convention in a mere 2000 generations we have changed from earlyidentical African almost hominids into the diverse humans of today.
My word the evolutionary process has been in overdrive.
Most people on average can know 5 generations they being the sixth. So something like 500 people born on a continuous timeline one after another consecutively can know all the generations between our so called exodus from Africa and we today.
Surely the establishment has a problem here.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by tauristercus
 


There are genomes much bigger than human genome present in much simpler and older organisms - the biggest genome has 670 billion base pairs, and is present in simple single celled Amoeba dubia. There is no relationship between genome lenght and position of organism in the tree of life.

The part that is actually used for coding in human genome makes up just a few % of its lenght. Most of genome is not transcribed


So the human is a much more efficient use of the genetic database? That doesn't alter the holes in evolutionary theory (as they apply to the Homo genus). The evolution from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens can be evidenced only across a timeframe of 250,000 years or so. That's far too short a time - and besides; within that 250,000 years there is no convincing evidence of a series of mutations. Only a quick 'jump' from one lineage to another. Smacks of intervention (or the 'switching on' of dormant genes/ hybridisation experiments conducted by an intelligence described by our earliest forbears as 'the gods').

We could do it now! As in, we could 'advance' a chimpanzee by 'magically' combining it with our own DNA. If we did it on a planetary scale, to create a race of slave labourers able to take the strain of manual work away from ourselves - would we be as 'gods' to the chimp-men? Then, if we decided to move off into the far reaches of the universe, would we 'cut them loose' and give them the basics of civilisation in return for their service? I'm guessing we could, though whether we would be benevolent enough to let them have their freedom I don't know, given the disgraceful lack of humanitarianism displayed by our global elites.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cythraul
I used to be an atheist hellbent on the reality of Darwinian evolution; then I read Jeremy Narby's 'The Cosmic Serpent' and Graham Hancock's 'Supernatural' and felt as though both some form of evolution and some form of creation were in fact true. Now, to be honest, I do believe that a higher cosmic force has strongly influenced the development of man and possibly all life on Earth. It no longer requires an abstract blind faith in an omnipotent bearded man in the sky, but scientific evidence is starting to back it up.


What a pleasure to read of a conversion from atheism! I read Narby's "Cosmic Serpent" too - in fact, it's in my top ten books relating to anthropology/ archaeology/ origins of humanity. Haven't read Hancock's "Supernatural", but will check it out now following your 'recommendation'. All the best for the New Year.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Pains me to say it, but 'nonsense'.

Those posts did nothing to address the anomalies in the evolutionary development of Homo Sapiens. They merely addressed misconceptions/ simplifications made by the OP - admitted as such by Tauristercus, also on page 1.

So, unfortunately, your attempt to 'move us along' has failed.

Keep digging folks. In general, evolutionary theory makes sense (though there's more to be discovered, even in the conventional models). However, it does not make sense when applied to the development of the Human Race.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I myself am a open minded Christian, so the idea of evolution isn't "satanic" or "evil' to me as other christians see.

This bit of information in my eyes strengthens the case for God guided evolution. Very interesting piece of information indeed.
But for sciences sake, how many rungs are in, lets say a dog. This way we can cross reference a dogs "rungs", to human "rungs" to see if ours was super charged as you say.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join