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.

 

Humans don't belong on earth?

page: 11
32
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
I brought this up a few pages past but it got ignored so I'll say it again.


Humans obviously don't have some charateristics of other animals which would make survival more likely. Sure we can use animal fur and fire to keep warm but a built in fur coat would be handy in the wild. We aren't as strong as some apes either. We can't run as fast, sense of smell is weaker, eye sight isn't as good and we don't have sharp teeth or claws.

A smart and physically fit animal has a better chance of survival than a smart and weak animal.

So why LOSE these charateristics which would help us hunt?

we have better eyesight than the majority of animal... just saying. Though hawks, and felines, have just beat.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You missed my point, we aren't as physically fit as the animals we were alleged to have evolved from.

Why didn't we keep these characteristics?


They would have ADDED to our chance of survival.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You missed my point, we aren't as physically fit as the animals we were alleged to have evolved from.

Why didn't we keep these characteristics?


They would have ADDED to our chance of survival.

Why keep energy-hungry characteristics when our brains can compensate? Who needs natural strength when you have tools?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
Think about it.
Cats, dog etc, have fur, feathers, scales etc to protect them from their natural enviroment, they dont need to live in houses, they are born perfect without dissabilities, due to evolution and the survival of the fittest.
Hell horses on their first day they are born, they are running around, not that i like horses, just pointing it out.


Bull crap, bull crap, and even more bull crap! Naming a few animals that are better adapted to their natural environment doesn't prove a thing. Humans have adapted out of their natural environment which is why it seems like they "cant survive" without help. Try naming a few of the many animals that would die the first few hours of out their natural environment and then say humans aren't perfect for earth. We've adapted better than most other animals ever could to any environment on earth.


Those animals have perfect night vision, humans can barely see in the dark.


No, not all animals have "perfect" night visions. Humans are just one of the many who don't.


Humans on the other hand, need houses, humans make the enviroment adapt to them, human babies are too weak on their first day of birth, they born naked, hungry etc, it takes humans at least 18 years to be somewhat self sufficient.
We need shelter to live, we can't live in the open, we'll die, wolves will kill us, predators will kill us, the cold will kill us, we can't hunt, we have to kill cattle etc.


Once again, no. Humans are certainly not the only animals that need shelter, that are born weak and need support from a mother. Have you ever seen a female dog protect it's puppies? The only reason they don't take 18 years to grow out of it is because:

1. They have faster metabolism.
2. They don't have an utterly retarded social structure that we humans have telling you what age you can start to be self sufficient.
3. Humans can hunt and did for many years, most just evolved out of it.


Animals are born perfect, survival of the fittes, if they're disabled theyre left to die, humans on the other hand we have variation, some are disabled, some are smart, some are dumb, does the animals in the wild have this?


So you're saying because a human, although disabled can still adapt and be fit enough to survive that they're somehow different than other animals? Because they adapt to their disability rather than just falling out and dying?


Humans aren't a natural part of this ecosystem, mother nature is not our mother, but a cold hard bitch who wants us dead.


Opinions aren't facts.


Thoughts?


You fail.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Goosebumps.

Both my presented example and my reaction to the level of ignorance shown here.

We still get goosebumps when our skin is exposed to a harsh environment. Yet as modern homo sapiens, the little amount of body hair that remains is not anywhere near the amount that would be required to trap a satisfactory layer of heat.

There was a time where we had a sufficient volume of body hair. Alas, no longer! Not only is this provable beyond a doubt and the universally accepted scientific viewpoint, it makes sense; the physical evidence even on your own body, vestigial reactions and tissues, can demonstrate it to you.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and yet I know this much.

How come you lot don't?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I was just talking with a friend last night who is a nurse. We were discussing what elements we would need for survival if all the SHF! She said that people who had access so medical personnel and equipment would survive,or at least last longer.
I have been reading the Pulitzer Prize book, "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy, and it was made into a movie. The story is vague about the cause of the demise, but clearly only a few humans have survived some huge global disaster (the presence of ashes makes one think it was climate change, cme, nuclear or some other disaster like that). IN the story, a man and his son are featured. They are nameless and wander down a nameless road with a cart which they stock with whatever they find along the way. Everything has been ravaged by other humans. Just basic things like fire, water, food, and shelter are always an issue. The book really made me think what would be needed for survival.

As far as animals, I seem to recall that pioneers who had cattle had always to go out in the winters and make sure the cattle were warm. I guess Bison are more adapted to cold. My sister used to raise turkeys and said that she would go as early as possible to the pens to get the eggs, but the snakes would always beat her. How can chickens survive when the snakes get their eggs before they hatch?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 


If you didn't know what he was trying to say why even bother reading these posts give us a break and say nothing



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Obviously our adaptations are more successfull than any animals, because we have a much higher survival rate, than any other animals. However, I do see what your saying about humans not seeming to be a likely result of natural selection.

Also the missing link is feet... when did we evolve modern feet, which are quite different from an aped foot, though actually relativly close to a cats foot.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Daughter2
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You missed my point, we aren't as physically fit as the animals we were alleged to have evolved from.

Why didn't we keep these characteristics?


They would have ADDED to our chance of survival.

Why keep energy-hungry characteristics when our brains can compensate? Who needs natural strength when you have tools?


Sharp teeth and claws aren't really energy-hungry characteristics. And tools are easier to use when you have natural strength!

You can eat more if you can shoot a spear 1000 feet than you can if you can only make 500 feet.

Put two people in the wild, with all other factors being equal, the stronger person will have a higher chance of survival.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2


Sharp teeth and claws aren't really energy-hungry characteristics.

No, but the strength of limb and jaw as well as natural defences are. No need when you have tools.


And tools are easier to use when you have natural strength!

Strength requires more energy. When times are scarce, that becomes a big problem.


You can eat more if you can shoot a spear 1000 feet than you can if you can only make 500 feet.

You would NEED to eat more to support such strength. Why bother when you have tools?


Put two people in the wild, with all other factors being equal, the stronger person will have a higher chance of survival.

The calorie intake of both will still be around the same as the relative strength difference isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 


There are a lot of possibilities for why this could happen. Perhaps there was a bottleneck due to food shortage and the smaller members of the species survived because they require less food. There's also the important factor of sexual selection. It's never so cut and dry where the stronger animal is always the best choice for a mate.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 


Your theory left out the DNA factor. Humans share quite a lot of DNA with all creatures on this planet.
Either we all evolved here on earth or we were all created to live on this planet. Our abilities vs animal abilities has nothing to do with whether we belong on earth or not.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 

Humans among other living things are part of it, only that humans became the end product, hair is a cover of the past, the finale product is man without hair because of the circumstances of how man chose to live I would say, all the things ingested, including food made an alteration to human kind, from wild to docile. So you got at the begining of man's journey a more energetic man, full of energy very wild like, at the other end you got today's man that is very lame. The problem is now, not how it was, because man no longer fits in with the eco system, that is true, man can't survive in the wild like all the animals. If you take some guy from his apartment and drop him on an island in the forest he will die. But this is just the now, not how it was, man use to coexist in tribes in the wild, and prehistoric man use to live in caves just like bears and other types of animals that do so. I would not say that man can't adapt to nature, it can but it's dependent on the sociaty it lives in, this stuff is just like smoking, a dependency. Sociaty have cultivated robots that can no longer live in the wild.

I can't agree with you on man's past, but I may agree with you on the present man.


edit on 4-9-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by caseaday
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 


If you didn't know what he was trying to say why even bother reading these posts give us a break and say nothing

Please accept my apologies. Next time I will try to make my post as informative, and as meaningful, as this ↑ post of yours is. /[color=696969]end sarcasm

Thanks for calling me back to this nonsense eer, uum, I mean, this thread.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Didn't read all the posts, but I always wondered are we the only species that is affected by the sunlight? Needing to squint in bright sunlight?!?!



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 


This video may explain a lot for you..youtu.be...
edit on 4-9-2011 by oozaru because: misspelling



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by oozaru
 



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Of course we belong on earth. There isn't another planet in our solar system that would be better suited.
Im guessing you are quite young otherwise you would have answered your own question for yourself years ago.

There are still tribes today that live "out in the open", they might make huts to stay out of the rain, but so do animals (think rabbits that live in warrens, meercats in burrows, mountain lions in caves). There have also been plenty of reported cases of "wild children" who cannot speak (at all) or use a knife and fork who survived with animals "out in the open" for years. The reason animals can survive "out in the open" is because they have Evolved (macro evolution) and adapted to the environment, just like we have.

The only reason we're not built like neaderthals is because we no longer need to be. We have adapted our enviroment to the point where we are no longer in danger from wild predators and where we no longer need to be physically able to hunt for our food. We actually followed a natural progression whereby dogs were domesticated and helped us to hunt, and eventually we domesticated cattle which again made it easier for us to survive. Why go and hunt for your food when you have cattle in a field behind your "house". At one point we probably possesed all those attributes because we needed them, now we don't. That doesn't mean that we've evolved or adapted to a point where we no longer belong on the planet, that is just a daft statement to make.

If we don't belong on earth, were do we belong? Do you suppose there is a planet where houses naturally sprout up out of the ground and food grows on trees in aisles seperated by type. And animals line up and drop dead for us to eat.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
 


At first I looked at this thread and said to myself, "Psh, humans can't survive in the wild because of how their societies developed, not because they're aliens or something." But then I thought about what humans do to their environment, and I thought about what Agent Smith said in the Matrix:


I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.


Then I thought about what happens when a creature is introduced to a habitat that it does not belong in. This can have three outcomes:

1) The species dies off very quickly due to its inability to adjust to its new surroundings.
2) The species adapts to its surroundings, and predators that are native to the area adapt to hunting this species in addition to whatever they naturally hunt.
3) The species has no natural predators, and continues to multiply until it is overpopulated and destroys its new environment.

Humans may, or may not, be a native species to planet earth, but evidence would suggest that, at the very least, non-sustainable western society may have been given some "outside help" in getting itself to the point it's at today.

Introduced Species
Invasive Species
Predation: Ecological Role



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I am reading The 12th Planet, by Zecharia Sitchin. It has came to my attention that if his evidence is true, then the Annunaki civilisation immigrated to Southern Africa from Niburu in the beginning as advanced technological evidence has been found, like mining operations for gold, silver, platinum etc.... over 50,000 BC, while ordinary earth man was still running around with clubs.
I have hypothesised that the black/negro race are the Annunaki ancestors as it makes perfect sense? That's the reason why there are multiple races as there are either descended from earth like neanderthal man or other planets and that is why we have such a big melting pot here on Earth? Any thoughts?



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join