ARE WE ALIENS, If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

reply to post by queenofsheba


I've never heard of barking wolves?
Humans that bark, yes. When they have those stupid conversations about what was on TV or the new fashion,...
And why would dogs develope different languages among themselfes? A dog from Australia speaks the same language as one from America and Europe.
Ooh I speak in 5 languages to my dog, no problem here.
Try and learn your son the language of dogs, see how that turns out...

Someone else said, humans are domesticated apes.
Like dogs are domesticated wolves?
How they become domestic? Someone had to bring them in and learn? Separate the agressive ones from the none agressive and breed with the none agressive. If you have ever heard of the wild silver fox experiment.

So where are our teachers?

Or is it just luck?

I really have to ask, is English your first language?

reply to post by SG-17

well you ask it polite, i would say no
And...

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by Hellhound604

 

So, evolution in humans, these days, has nothing to do anymore with natural selection?
To say it in a different way.

No, not at all. I would say that humans are steering evolution in another way, maybe making us too dependent on modern stuff, like medicines, and making us perhaps too dependent on those. For example, take our dependance on antibiotics. There is a predator-prey adaption going on in nature, google "red queen hypothesis", in which any organism and its parasites keep on evolving just to keep pace. Now we use antibiotics, and kill of most of the bacteria, except the ones that are immune to this antibiotic. Now bacteria breeds incredibly fast, and within a couple of generations you have mostly bacteria that are immune to this antibiotic, and all of a sudden, the old antibiotic doesn't work anymore. It gets even worse than this, different types of bacteria can exchange nuclear material (bacterial conjugation), and some of it might be that part of the DNA that enables the other type of bacteria to be immune against that antibiotic, and guess what, all of a sudden, the new type of bacteria acquires immunity too. The bacteria keeps on adapting, so we vastly accelerate their evolution, and in the mean time, our own immune response does not undergo this accelerated adaptation....... the same applies to GM foods.......
Sickle cell anemia is another example. In countries where sickle-cell trait is endemic, they also have a high incidence of malaria-carrying mosquitoe's. Yet most people with sickle-cell trait anemia is not nearly as effected by the malaria-parasite as people that don't have that disease. (Cickle-cell anemia occurs when the gene is present both genes. In people with sickle-cell trait, it is only present in one gene, the other gene still express normal hemoglobin)Yet, we want to get rid of sickle-cell anemia, which is exactly what is needed for immunity against malaria. No, we rather want to poison vast areas with pesticides and choose to forget that natural selection drives everything.

but enough peeving, guess I need to start giving references :

sickle-cell anemia and malaria : sickle.bwh.harvard.edu...
bacterial conjugation : en.wikipedia.org...
red queen hypothesis : en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 17/5/2011 by Hellhound604 because: explained sickle-cell a bit better

Why is the evolution of bacteria happening so fast? it only needs some generations to adapt to antibiotics.
But humans need thousands of years?

I just read an article on the 35 years fruitfly experiment, can someone clarify this what they concluded?
The only thing i got from this, is that things happened that they didnt expect or gone the way it should be?
And they point out some things that may be the cause?

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by SG-17

 

well you ask it polite, i would say no
And...

edit on 17-5-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)

Do you use an online translator to post here or are you actually learning English?


I ask because sometimes your posts seem incoherent. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to help you help me.

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
Why is the evolution of bacteria happening so fast? it only needs some generations to adapt to antibiotics.
But humans need thousands of years?

Depending on hte bacteria and the conditions, a population of them can undergo a hundred generations in a day.

for humans (most multicellular life, in fact) we have to wait until sexual maturity. In our case, the gap between a generation averages to about 20 years.

So a population of Bacteria can, in the best conditions, do what takes humans two thousand years to accomplish. We just breed VERY slowly compared to a bacterium.

reply to post by Geoneo99


i think your right on the button with that
you know they find fossils of everything else thats lived on the planet in the past
except the so called missing link s+f for you my like minded friend

reply to post by philware


Which missing link? I mean, you only need to go to Wikipedia to find out that your claim is entirely false and without basis in reality.

reply to post by Hellhound604


My post was more for the sake of keeping it simple. I merely wanted to point out that just because organisms evolve, doesn't mean that the common ancestor dissapears. Many zoologists would not like my point of view, but the classification of biological species is problematic for a number of reasons. Gene flow can, and does occur between closely linked species much more than many would think. I have a degree in biology and have studied lots of genetics and evolution subjects, but thanks for the response anyway.

I gave up on long winded posts about science on ATS a long time ago... lol.

Originally posted by intergalactic fire

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by Hellhound604

 

So, evolution in humans, these days, has nothing to do anymore with natural selection?
To say it in a different way.

No, not at all. I would say that humans are steering evolution in another way, maybe making us too dependent on modern stuff, like medicines, and making us perhaps too dependent on those. For example, take our dependance on antibiotics. There is a predator-prey adaption going on in nature, google "red queen hypothesis", in which any organism and its parasites keep on evolving just to keep pace. Now we use antibiotics, and kill of most of the bacteria, except the ones that are immune to this antibiotic. Now bacteria breeds incredibly fast, and within a couple of generations you have mostly bacteria that are immune to this antibiotic, and all of a sudden, the old antibiotic doesn't work anymore. It gets even worse than this, different types of bacteria can exchange nuclear material (bacterial conjugation), and some of it might be that part of the DNA that enables the other type of bacteria to be immune against that antibiotic, and guess what, all of a sudden, the new type of bacteria acquires immunity too. The bacteria keeps on adapting, so we vastly accelerate their evolution, and in the mean time, our own immune response does not undergo this accelerated adaptation....... the same applies to GM foods.......
Sickle cell anemia is another example. In countries where sickle-cell trait is endemic, they also have a high incidence of malaria-carrying mosquitoe's. Yet most people with sickle-cell trait anemia is not nearly as effected by the malaria-parasite as people that don't have that disease. (Cickle-cell anemia occurs when the gene is present both genes. In people with sickle-cell trait, it is only present in one gene, the other gene still express normal hemoglobin)Yet, we want to get rid of sickle-cell anemia, which is exactly what is needed for immunity against malaria. No, we rather want to poison vast areas with pesticides and choose to forget that natural selection drives everything.

but enough peeving, guess I need to start giving references :

sickle-cell anemia and malaria : sickle.bwh.harvard.edu...
bacterial conjugation : en.wikipedia.org...
red queen hypothesis : en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 17/5/2011 by Hellhound604 because: explained sickle-cell a bit better

Why is the evolution of bacteria happening so fast? it only needs some generations to adapt to antibiotics.
But humans need thousands of years?

I just read an article on the 35 years fruitfly experiment, can someone clarify this what they concluded?
The only thing i got from this, is that things happened that they didnt expect or gone the way it should be?
And they point out some things that may be the cause?

to answer your questions :

bacteria breed incredibly fast, in fact, they breed exponentially until they run out of resources, as well, depending on temperature, they multiply in a matter of minutes. f.ex. say a bacteria has a generation time (time it takes to double the population) of 20 minutes, and you start with 1. after 40 minutes you will have 2. after 60 minutes you will have 4. after 80 minutes you will have 8. after 100 minutes you will have 16 and after and 2 hours you will have 32, and so on. After just 24 hours you will have 4700000000000000000000000000000000000000000 bacteria!!!!!! Say the mutation rate in their environment is 1 in 10E-8, and the average genome length for Gram Positive bacteria is 10E6 bp, that means that after 1 day you will have 47000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible mutations, and even if 1 of these mutations are beneficial for providing immunity against a specific pathogen, and every one of the other bacteria dies off, within one day you will have 4700000000000000000000000000000000000000000 again, all having immunity. The above is highly simplified, as there is a competition for resources, etc, etc.

Humans (and other more evolved species), on the other hand, have much longer generation time. 25 years for humans, 7days for fruit flies.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.umsl.edu...

reply to post by SG-17


i dont have the need to learn english or use a translator.
If i am incoherent iyo, you should check your evolution.
You want to help me help you? Thats not what i get from this conversation.
Where were you 20 years ago?
Is english your first language or is it just your only?

There's still apes because the aliens only changed some of our ancestors into more modern humans. The apes they didn't catch just stayed in the wild and remained apes. Sorry if this already got said, I don't feel like reading all 110 replies..

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


get a grip will you mate

Originally posted by korath
There's still apes because the aliens only changed some of our ancestors into more modern humans. The apes they didn't catch just stayed in the wild and remained apes. Sorry if this already got said, I don't feel like reading all 110 replies..

You should have read the replies...because if you did, you'd realize how lunatic your statement is. On what evidence do you base your claims? Do you have any clue about how many primates there are on earth? BILLIONS!!! And you claim some aliens herded most of them up based on what??

Originally posted by philware
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

get a grip will you mate

So you make some hogwash claim about a missing link, then get proven wrong...and this is the best reply you can come up with?

At least it's a good way to show you're completely out of valid arguments

reply to post by MrXYZ


Those few links should proof our evolution? If you call a footprint here and a bone there proof?
You gonna have to do better to convince me.

A slow process means slow or small changes in generations? So there should be more proof than.

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Those few links should proof our evolution? If you call a footprint here and a bone there proof?
You gonna have to do better to convince me.

A slow process means slow or small changes in generations? So there should be more proof than.

What would you accept as proof then? If a friggin' skeleton isn't enough...

reply to post by healthysceptic


More than 1 would be nice.
The ones they found were just mutations, IMO

If you bothered reading what I wrote you will notice I never said anything about most of the billions of primates getting herded up, I said "some" I also said apes, not primates in general, as for what I base it on, read a book called rule by secrecy by Jim Marrs.

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by healthysceptic

 

More than 1 would be nice.
The ones they found were just mutations, IMO

The fossil record is exceptional, given the various states of preservation and the environments required for preservation, so that it is incredible that we have anything; especially given the vast time scale we are talking about.
It's far far harder than trying to find a needle in a haystack.
In my opinion (I guess you were saying that rather than mispelling 'EMO'?) I have no concerns with the Theory of Hominid Evolution. It certainly, to me, makes more sense than an 'unnecessary' alien intervention. I guess I'm biased because I work as a Paleontologist/Sedimentologist; but this by no means implies that I'm not a) widely-read on the subject including the peripheries, and b) not open to new ideas that make sense.

See the link in an earlier post of mine regarding Ian Tattersall. for my money, I feel he's onto it.