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.

 

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

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


I wil check him out and tell you what i think.
Right now i am checking some of the beginnings(or endings you could say) of Darwins theory when he worked together with Alfred Russel Wallace, why they stopped working together and what he did after that.
Didnt know it first called The Darwin-Wallace theory.

I can understand its difficult to find proof (and well preserved), but I wouldnt make a worldwide statement if i didnt found all the dots that should connect a theory. In this case, i would try and find proof of the rather big leaps.
If you understand what i am trying to say?

If you dont understand things because my sentences may sound strange to you(like someone mentioned before), just ask and i wil try it again in other words
I use basic english but hey, I survived every vacation to a country where i didnt spoke their language so that does not have to be a problem


Did i wrote EMO somewhere? hmmm, Guess that happens


I have some questions about sedimentology as you are in the field, but i will ask them later( its getting a bit late here, time to go to my prefered reality world




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I can understand you perfectly well. you're doing fine!


I get carried away sometimes with disingenuous comments; they're something I'm trying to resolve, so just ignore that 'EMO' comment!

another really really really good book on the subject is Stephen Jay Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". Beware though, it's a magnificently hefty tone. I've got it and read it once, but really, it's so packed full that it will take me much more than one read to get my head around fully!
edit on 18-5-2011 by aorAki because: speeelingk



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 
Wow you actually read the Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I saw it at the bookstore a few years ago and thought it was a mattress. Once I found out it was a book by Stephen Jay Gould I finally understood why he was seen as a rebel.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
reply to post by healthysceptic
 


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


Well, consider the odds.

1) This grossly deformed murtant individual had to survive for quite some time
2) His mutations are surprisingly uniform - limbs are equal lengths, skull is a uniform shape, no signs of extreme abnormalities in skeletal wear-and-tear
3) when he dies, he ends up fossilized - BILLIONS of organisms die around the world every couple of hours; the majority of them will decompose utterly and leave no trace in the future fossil record.
4) We end up finding him. Fossilization is rare, but the odds of people finding a given fossil are astronomically remote, simply because there are so many places we haven't looked, or where we can't look (I doubt we could bulldoze Jerusalem to see what the Near Eastern neandertal population left behind)

Now, all these keep adding to the unlikelihood of each other. The odds of us just happening to find the one guy who just happened to get fossilized who just happened to have perfectly livable mutations, is, quite simply, astounding. Impossible? No, I suppose it's not impossible (After all, we DID find that one Neandertal dude who was like, a hundred years old and looked like he'd lived through a mammoth stampede or something; slim odds on that!) But to set that as our default position, not just for one particular fossil, but for ALL fossils, is just, well, silly.

That said, in regards to evolution, fossils are just the sprinkles on the cake. If nothing ever fossilized, we would still have abundant proof of evolution in the form of geobiodiversity (the population of different organisms in certain areas), genetics, virology, and, of all things, animal husbandry (if you can turn a wolf from India into a Chihuahua in Mexico by accident, then certainly nature could do the same)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
If we are apes then how come a man cant have a child with a female ape ?
Example: Humans mutate and change, we get taller because women choose taller men.
But their children can still breed with any human on the planet.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


Yep...it was hard going too and I need to revisit it again and again for it all to settle in as it's not in his 'popular' style.
However, I feel the investment will be rewarding.
However,this illustrates part of the 'problem' as it isn't instantly accessible and requires attention and effort from the reader.
edit on 19-5-2011 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
this question wasnt well thought out. you can say the same for dogs. are dogs aliens becuase there are still wolves?

(hint: the answer is no)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by simples
reply to post by yadda333
 



1. Did we evolve from monkeys? Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.


Who looks stupid now?


Thanks for posting this, I was going to post it too when I read the thread title...

GG



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

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.


If you think footprints and bones are the only evidence, you obviously have no clue about the theory of evolution



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sandesh
 


I cannot even begin to express how painful the title and content of this post was to read.

:bnghd:

Yes, clearly we're not related to other life on Earth Evolutionarily, just because we're vertebrate tetrapodal mammals who share uncanny genetic, morphological and behavioral similarities to other great apes clearly indicates that aliens were involved.



Early Chinese texts tell of long-lived rulers from the heavens who flew in fire-breathing dragons.


Right, it's called mythology, it's fascinating and all but all the supernatural stuff it talks about - probably not true. Are we going to begin accepting any and all mythology that support our presuppositions?



Is it any mystery why Asians are short.


This is a joke right? You're making fun of ancient astronaut theorists. Please tell me this is all a parody and you're a POE. I'm not a scientist but I do know that research has been done on human origins. We didn't come from Asia. We did, however, spread out from Africa, some populations became isolated and thus, thanks to Evolution, became genetically different from the ancestor population that came from Africa. These include the superficial differences that make up race along with more interesting genetic alterations like the genes possessed by Tibetans that allow them to survive at high altitudes most of us would find inhospitable.

Now I'm going to walk away and pretend this thread never existed, for the sake of what little hope for humanity I have left.


edit on 19-5-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

I was talking about human evolution.

What about artifacts and bones that were dated much earlier?

Ancient Coin from Illinois:
This coinlike object, from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface. According to information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits containing the coin are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old

Mysterious Letters from a Quarry:
Raised letterlike shapes found inside a block of marble from a quarry near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The block of marble came from a depth of 60-70 feet in strata dated 500-600 million years old

Grooved Sphere from South Africa(The Klerksdorp Spheres):
A metallic sphere from South Africa with three parallel grooves around its equator. The sphere was found in a Precambrian mineral deposit, said to be 2.8 billion years old.

Reck's Skeleton:
The first significant African discovery related to human origins occurred in 1913 when Professor Hans Reck, of Berlin University, found a human skeleton in the upper part of Bed II at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Modern dating methods give a late Early Pleistocene date of around 1.15 million years for this site.The bed in which the human remains were found....showed no sign of disturbance.

Castenedolo Skull:
This anatomically modern human skull was found in 1880 at Castenedolo, Italy. The stratum from which it was taken is assigned to the Astian stage of the Pliocene. According to modern authorities, the Astian belongs to the Middle Pliocene, which would give the skull an age of 3-4 million years.

Javaman Thighbone:
In August 1892, Eugene Dubois discovered a fossilized humanlike femur on the bank of the Solo River in central Java, near the village of Trinil. 45 feet from this location he found a skullcap and molars. Dubois believed the molars, skull, and femur all came from the same being.
However, the fact that these bones were found 45 feet from the place where the skull was unearthed, in a stratum containing hundreds of other animal bones makes doubtful the claim that both the thighbone and the skull actually belonged to the same creature or even the same species.
In 1895 Dubois presented his findings to the Berlin Society for Anthropology, Ethnology, and Prehistory.The president of the society, Dr. Virchow declared that the femur was human and the skull belonged to an ape.
Late in his life, Dubois concluded that the skullcap belonged to a large gibbon, an ape not considered by evolutionists to be closely related to humans. But this concept of the "missing link" is still widely promoted today.

Hueyatlaco Site:
This particular site has found remains of human habitation at about between 250,000 to 350,000 years ago.
Hueyatlaco was excavated at first by an archaeologist by the name of Cynthia Williams.
Archaeologist Williams found that she had a very early occupational site. She found some crude stone tools and also found many animal bones from which meat had been butchered.

Table Mountain artifacts:
Mortar and Pestle set discovered in Table Mountain (near Jamestown, California), in a gravel deposit claimed to be 55 million years old; this claim has since been discredited.
....
All hoaxes? Or there is something wrong with our way of dating.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
If we are apes then how come a man cant have a child with a female ape ?
Example: Humans mutate and change, we get taller because women choose taller men.
But their children can still breed with any human on the planet.

1. Are you sure you can't have a child with a female ape?
2. If you can't, it's probably because several million years separate the two lineages.
3. The reason we're getting taller is not about genetics, but nutrients. Tall men aren't reproducing any more than short men.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
The problem i have with Darwinism that its all based on materialism.

Richard Dawkins:
We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment

Survival machines competing with other survival machines.
You see it everywhere and it gives us all these problems we see today, from war with you loved ones to war over religion.
edit on 19-5-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 

The problem I have with religion that it's all based on lies and blind faith.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 

The problem I have with religion that it's all based on lies and blind faith.



The problem i have with religion is that its used to control and deceive the people

I dont know if its all lies.
To me i think its just a copy of older textbooks, hearings, learnings(from travelers)... Information they got from many cultures all over the world.
They just put those together to make a story for their upcoming 'religion' at the time.
The story goed in somewhat the same line, just changing names and purposes(reasons?) to make their 'religion' sounds more superior. Difficult to explain but i hope you get the ponit




edit on 19-5-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by intergalactic fire because: I was refering to the book, the bible




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
The problem i have with Darwinism that its all based on materialism.

Richard Dawkins:
We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment

Survival machines competing with other survival machines.
You see it everywhere and it gives us all these problems we see today, from war with you loved ones to war over religion.
edit on 19-5-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)


Like it or not, that's reality


Look at bankers screwing over the rest for personal gain...that's how it works. I make my money by making people pay too much for real estate. You might not like it, but that's just how it works.

As for your examples...you do realize that the last one states "which has been debunked" at the end. If you actually bother to look up the sources, instead of copy/pasting from crappy sites like godlikeproductions, you'd realize that none of the examples you list are backed up by facts.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Evolution 101

Another useful introduction

These links are excellent beginning points for aiding understanding about evolution.

Enjoy



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
If you actually bother to look up the sources, instead of copy/pasting from crappy sites like godlikeproductions, you'd realize that none of the examples you list are backed up by facts.


What do you mean godlikeproductions?
Yes i copy/paste the texts from the original documents by the founders or magazines they were published in, if you like links to the articles, i will give you them?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by intergalactic fire
The problem i have with Darwinism that its all based on materialism.

Richard Dawkins:
We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment

Survival machines competing with other survival machines.
You see it everywhere and it gives us all these problems we see today, from war with you loved ones to war over religion.
edit on 19-5-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)


Like it or not, that's reality



Yes, its a reality where most of it is created by Drawinisme.
That is what we find in every textbook in school, university.
The governement wont let the people make a choice. They should teach every side of life, and let the students choose for themself which or what to believe. By only teaching darwinism, it will become a normal fact and other possibilities will faster be rejected by them.
With other possibilities and side, i mean , its not only matter that counts.
Why I say the governement, because they control the education system
edit on 19-5-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 
There is no other side. Darwinism is a broad field, and has many different branches of learning.

Do you have a problem with the education system teaching gravity? Any scientist will tell you there is more evidence supporting evolution than there are supporting the current theories of gravity



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join