Humans don't belong on earth?

Amen, evolution just doesn't add up. We were put here, by what or whom is a mystery but we are here.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
sharks will die from a lack of oxygen, if they stop moving.

Good point, How could they have evolved on earth? All other creatures can lie down and sleep without dying. And surely not even the meanest, nastiest, god would have created a creature with such a disabilty for fun?

Sharks MUST be aliens

in regards to the OP, and that this is ATS, i find it intriguing that there are those who vehemently subscribe to the theory of man evolving from ape.

a theory so exercised by the mainstream, taught as the only credible possibility to the beginnings of man.


but we all know things aren't what they seem, in So many differing aspects of this world.

for this very reason, ATS exists.


and one such thing is this theory of man's evolution...

for there Are inconsistencies with the official theory...the sudden appearance of homo sapiens in regard to the widely accepted theory of evolution...the loss of hair, the use of tools, the sudden transition of diets (herbivore to omnivore) the loss of muscle strength, the need to walk upright...

what actually propagated such changes?

this must be heavily considered...for it is the Catalyst of these changes that is the real issue here.

for one to say that these changes are just the natural cause of evolution is blatantly ignoring the possible details of what actually occurred to separate ape and man.


and one needs to really consider them carefully - and in regards to the designs of the ape.


also consider that there Are numerous ancient accounts from various cultures - including the bible - that speak clearly of man being Created.


Not Evolving.


so, for all practical purposes, there is something not right.

there Is something amiss with the widely accepted theory of man's evolution.


but...in regards to the OP, and in my humble opinion...


humanity is not a natural product of this earth, but an artificial one made with the abilities to survive upon it.



food for thought.

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
they dont need to live in houses

yes they do, they have nests, dens, burrows etc

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
they are born perfect without dissabilities, due to evolution and the survival of the fittest.

not true at all..... they just dont survive in the wild....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7dafc9dfe511.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
Those animals have perfect night vision, humans can barely see in the dark.

again not true, not all animals have good night vision.

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
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.

LOTS of animals are helpless when they are first born.... Mice, cats, dogs, Lions, Otters, Badgers, Birds and on and on.... they just stay in their burrows/dens/setts/houses etc until they are safe to leave

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ada26f7b3185.jpg[/atsimg]

Even though the OP has been ripped apart, this is still an interesting thread.

It's really an argument on Evolution.

Bipedal walking and running are efficient modes of locomotion. People can cover greater distances over time than any other animal. Walking enabled our ancestors to travel into unexplored territory, which in turn led them into new and often dangerous situations.

With the freeing of the front limbs, the hind limbs had to adapt to bearing the entire weight of the body. The human back was not originally “designed” to support upright posture (which partially explains why back pains are a common complaint). To support the additional weight, the human pelvis grew thicker than that of the great apes. As a result, the thickened pelvis made the female’s birth canal, the opening through which infants are born, much smaller. While the birth canal was becoming smaller, however, the fetus’s brain and head were growing larger. If there had been no evolutionary correction for this new disadvantage, the human species would have eventually died out because of inefficient childbirth. The evolutionary solution was to have human babies born very early in their development.

www.humanjourney.us...

reply to post by jheated5


I am not a liar...and your personal attack of me is uncalled for. I have read the posts I listed and I stand by my own personal views.

Originally posted by solardez

in regards to the OP, and that this is ATS, i find it intriguing that there are those who vehemently subscribe to the theory of man evolving from ape.

...generally without understanding that it's "man from hominid" not man from ape. Apes and hominids diverged from a common ancestor (actually, it appears that the apes are the divergent group. Not devolved. Just "took a different path" like dogs and wolves did from a common older canine ancestor.

for there Are inconsistencies with the official theory...

Some of these are "what people believe -- people who heard of the theory but haven't really read what it's all about."

the sudden appearance of homo sapiens in regard to the widely accepted theory of evolution...

Actually, homo sapiens didn't "suddenly appear." There were a good 8 or 10 species of hominids (who looked pretty much like us... give them a good hair cut, put them in jeans and a tee shirt, and you'd probably never notice them walking down the street.

If you want a good comparison of something that evolved into as many complex species (as the hominid line) in just as short a time period (six million years), take a look at the evolutionary history of the deer.

the loss of hair,

Actually, we don't know how much hair early hominids have. **ARTISTS** were the ones who drew them hairy and chimplike to say 'PRIMITIVE MAN HERE!' It's a holdover from the British imperial view that anyone not British was actually an inferior species and very close to ape-like (this also included Native Americans.) There's some new work by museums in Germany that present sculptures of our ancestors WITHOUT chimp hairstyles, and they look pretty modern.

the use of tools,

Wasn't that sudden, and a number of animals use tools... chimps use sticks to hit animals they hunt, for instance (and no, we're not descended from chimps. They're our cousins.)

the sudden transition of diets (herbivore to omnivore)

Hominid fossil teeth show they were all omnivores (to the best of my knowledge, from looking at the things.

the loss of muscle strength, the need to walk upright...

Dunno about loss of muscle strength. That has to do with body shape and bone modifications (including the placement of the collar bone.)

what actually propagated such changes?

Same thing that caused deer to change from stocky, horned creatures with long fangs (yes, really...though they were herbivores) into whitetails, mule deer, and others.

also consider that there Are numerous ancient accounts from various cultures - including the bible - that speak clearly of man being Created.

And in various ways, multiple creations, or simply "just appearing." It depends on which mythology you study. If humans had DNA that was NOT similar to any other creature on the planet and just appeared (with no other similar species around) in the fossil record, "created species" would be a darn good guess. We're close enough to Neanderthals (who were here before h. sapiens) to have interbred with them and probably the other hominids like h. erectus -- which means all three species had a common ancestor.

All three came from one older form of hominid. Otherwise they wouldn't be the same species.

And they couldn't breed with each other.

there Is something amiss with the widely accepted theory of man's evolution.

I agree... but what I feel is amiss is that people aren't actually reading about it (like on talkorigins.org, where they have all this stuff laid out.) They hear a few sentences and arguments and proceed as though they've heard the whole story.

Originally posted by TheRealTruth84
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

 

Humans have intelligence. That is why we are considered top of the food chain,

No, humans have TOOLS, that`s why we declare OURSELVES top of the food chain

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
sharks will die from a lack of oxygen, if they stop moving.

Good point, How could they have evolved on earth? All other creatures can lie down and sleep without dying. And surely not even the meanest, nastiest, god would have created a creature with such a disabilty for fun?

Sharks MUST be aliens

I guess you must have overlooked one tiny detail, from within that quote; It's called Oxygen. Look it up sometime. It can be very useful.


Also ~
I have no clue what your god has to do with it. I have not mentioned your god, or aliens. What exactly is the point that you are attempting to convey with this post ↑???

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien



But birds build "houses" and we have been running away from the dark long enough to get right of any night vision capabilities

I was thinking the exact same thing today. I wondered why our skin is so thin and vulnerable to attack. My kitten scratched me and it bled. I thought, imagine all those wild animals with claws.... wouldnt have been nice back in the cave days. So the question is whether we really are indigenious to this planet.

Tell me,

What would today's men look like if they never shaved, at all. Like freaking animals.

Now imagine mens that lived 30,000 years ago. Yeah, them even more.

That's evolution.

A better question would be: did someone drop the seed for our intelligence somewhere along our evolution?

In other words, did we get "engineered" in our developpement.

reply to post by Byrd

I agree... but what I feel is amiss is that people aren't actually reading about it (like on talkorigins.org, where they have all this stuff laid out.) They hear a few sentences and arguments and proceed as though they've heard the whole story.

I think this really sums up most of the threads in the O&C part of these forums. Most of the people, and please note that I said "most" and not "all", who post some kind of refutation of modern evolutionary synthesis here haven't even taken the time to understand what claims the theory makes. Witness comments of "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" in this very thread.

Comparing us to animals in our present state does not work. We've evolved beyond that at this point. Our survival mechanism is our brains. Our ability to anticipate, imagine and solve problems. That's our fur, claws, etc.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

there are hardly any short guys my height

Wow.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

What if humans were indeed engineered?
The rumors of the Annunaki creating us, in their image, and infusing their DNA with the DNA of the inhabitants of this planet, make perfect sense.

This argument is predicated on the existence of the Annunaki, or some similar being(s). Regardless of anything that follows, you need to show proof of their existence first. Otherwise it's, as you put it, nothing but "rumors".

And true, we aren't strong enough, hell if we were natural to this planet, i'd be long gone now, im 5'3, 150 pounds, 19, male,

You would have been right at home a few centuries ago, and just about middle-aged to boot. We've become taller over time.

i wouldn't have survived in any time frame other than post 80's, the world was just too primitive for someone like me to be around, there are hardly any short guys my height, it's impossible to relate to anyone.

And, yet, the genes for someone of your height are obviously still around. So, apparently, someone relates to short people of your gender sufficiently to have sex and reproduce with them.

Humans, survive based on our intelligence true, im not strong enough to fight, therefore i buy a gun, i am strong now, i can defend myself, i can fight a threat, it's possible to win a confrontation.

Which is preferable to survival based on brute force. This is obvious based on our position as apex species on this planet.

I mean, we're weak on day 1, we need our parents to care for us, for so many years, and if they die, we lose, society is set up, so that we need our parents for support.

Many species of animal have similar parental-filial relationships. We're hardly unique.

If evolution is true, then did both male and female evolve at the same exact time?

The evolution of gender and sexual reproduction is probably one of the biggest avenues of research in the field today. The why is becoming well understood -- species that reproduce sexually are able to propagate favorable mutations at a faster rate on a per generation basis than those that don't. The how is another matter entirely.

What about disabilities?
Disabilities contradicts survival of the fittest.
How can evolution happen then?

Depends on to what degree the "disabilities" are heritable and if they impede reproduction.

People don't have hair anymore, because they began to use cloth.
If monkeys did that, they would begin to lose hair after many many generations.

We once had a tail, but its not there anymore. Because we dont need it.

And, it dosent take a human 18 years to could beat nature. It does today, because youth dosent care anymore.
If they did, they would be rambo at 13 years old.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


Bananas have seeds. They're the little black things in the fruit. Bamboo spreads by sending underground runners out, like others grasses. Yes bamboo is a type of grass.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


We belong on Earth, no where else.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

What did we evolve from?
The ape?
If we did, then y is there still the ape?

This is a standard creationist question, one that has been asked (and answered) on these forums many many times.

This guy probably sums it up better than I could right now:

on the older view of evolution that was the common idea of evolution for a century prior to Darwin (both the evolution of organisms, or languages, and of social institutions), if a lineage had evolved, it moved "up" the ladder as a whole. On the Darwinian view, only one part of a species evolves into the next (and there's no "next step" - a species evolves into whatever suits the local conditions of the population it evolves from; it may be bigger brained or smaller brained, or for that matter bigger or smaller). The rest of the species remains. So we end up with an increase in the diversity of life, which is, I think, the single most important point Darwin ever made.