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.

 

The 'missing link' Found

page: 10
44
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


They're actually still looking for the missing link?




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 


Nicely done. I really admire the way some people can just divert the question that was aimed at them and talk about something completely different.


Still your scientific theories dont even apply to the big bang or even to the rest of evolution


And why would that be?


Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so then how did this singularity even come to existence hmm?


Well, nobody actually knows at the moment. That is why we have our greatest minds trying to figure it out. One current hypothesis is that the universe is part of an infinite cycle - that there is a big bang followed by a big crunch ad infinitum. You still never answered my question though.


what existing materials did god use to make the universe? You mean he made the universe out of nothing?. I thought you said that it was impossible for something to come from nothing?


Double standards, much?


You cant explain it cause its impossible, you believe it happened therefore its not science and you are in fact the Religion of Evolution.


Ahh, the good old "putting words in my mouth" trick.

"We can't explain it at the moment" is not the same as "we will never understand the origin of the universe"

From the evidence that I have looked at and studied (both in and out of college) the big bang is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.
edit on 11/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Misconceptions about evolution and religion,


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


That is of unless of course that neither creation or evolution are 100% correct,in the form that they are popularly known & believed at least.

it is always black or white,bending both ends of the theoretical spectrum-having to be one or the other--- "God" that created everything or we have the theory of Evolution...Why couldn't the truth be some form of both theories? or some possible combination of origins that our limited minds and viewpoints will merely remain to struggle in our attempt to explain and understand.

We need to have a little more imagination than what we have been force fed from both sides of the debate
there can still be ways of both ideas being compatible without negating one another, of course with a little editing

they are generally looked upon as being dichotomous instead of being embraced as the best that we have come up with so far in answering this age old mystery,it is what one becomes comfortable with acknowledging and believing,not an exclusive privilege in being "right"

I see the argument of some form of intelligent design being much more rationale,that does not negate creation nor evolution in my opinion.
the creation very well could of been designed to adapt,to spontaneously evolve under certain criteria,some that we now know of observed with nature like a change in habitat...There could still be other criteria that remains elusive.

Is there no room for the middle man? a little shade of gray perhaps.A group effort per se where even those involved have taken part in the creation,setting off the catalyst to where we find our species presently?

I think it is perfectly alright to not have all the answers to life's mysteries,for surely that is where the magic lies.
I can say with confidence that life's origins,no matter what the be all,end all answer may be,is by no means simple or easily explained .

Personally,From my own research and from a deeper intuition within,I believe that there has been genetic tampering all throughout our human ancestry, even the controversial theory that a "alien" intelligence could very well be the creators of what we now call human doesn't seem that implausible to me.

Although I do find spontaneous evolution utterly fascinating from the limited amount of information that I know.
I wonder What could also change our "evolutionary" path? A cataclysmic event perhaps?

I do not know but something tells me that change is on the way and so are hard times that will precede it

Anything and everything is possible when you truly allow yourself to remain open minded,even at the expense of being labeled crazy.

edit on 12-9-2011 by PerfectPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectPerception
 


Are you saying the truth might be a combination of evolution and the biblical creation myth?

But there are many different creation myths from around the world – all no doubt claiming to be the correct description of way the world was made

So why give the Judeo-Christian creation myth any more credibility then those others?

But if you are say there might be a god lurking around somewhere who got the ball rolling by creating life the universe and everything – ok maybe, so what evidence do you have for that?


Regarding the rest of your post – I have no interesting finding some kind of common ground between religion and science, I don’t see the point, what I am interested in is finding out what life the universe and everything is all about - and the religion’s currently on offer are worthless for that task

For what its worth, I think religions are mans first attempts at explaining life the universe and everything (a kind of proto science if you like)

But now we have real actual science and that’s doing a much better job than religion ever did

edit on 12-9-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Alxandro

Without this interjection, we would all still look like the modern primates, ala gorilla (negroid), chimpanzee (caucasoid) or orangutan (mongoloid).

]


Oh hell.
I am, seriously, aghast!



That's probably because you still subscribe to the antiquated theory of Darwinian evolution.
Try thinking out of the box.
When it comes to intelligence, humans have evolved at lightning speed, much faster than all other animals on the planet.

Why? ..because this blonde haired, blue eyed missing link was extraterrestrial, quite possibly some type of Nordic experiment.

Something was introduced into our DNA that caused our evolvement to be stuck on fast forward.
A catalyst of extraterrestrial origin makes much more sense than yet another "theory" involving another home grown primate.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Papa?...Is that you?.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 





Are you saying the truth might be a combination of evolution and the biblical creation myth?
So why give the Judeo-Christian creation myth any more credibility then those others?



No,I should of specified more clearly and elaborated precisely what exactly I was referring to.
i meant more along the lines of some form of Creation period.
not exclusive to the christian biblical accounts and creation story.Sorry,I did not make that clear


I am saying it could possibly be some combination of creation & evolution at the same time or nothing at all like either,let your mind go a little is all I am saying.I do not think anyone is absolutely correct,only bits and pieces of the puzzle




But if you are say there might be a god lurking around somewhere who got the ball rolling by creating life the universe and everything – ok maybe, so what evidence do you have for that?



I am saying there could possibly be some from of a creator,not necessarily "God" ,doe not have to be some personable divine being,maybe some form of energy with intelligence,the source of all.

Only evidence I have is my own belief and intuition.intelligence and design is all around us,in the micro and the macro level.I offer no argument or evidence,just my opinion




Regarding the rest of your post – I have no interesting finding some kind of common ground between religion and science, I don’t see the point, what I am interested in is finding out what life the universe and everything is all about - and the religion’s currently on offer are worthless for that task

For what its worth, I think religions are mans first attempts at explaining life the universe and everything (a kind of proto science if you like)


in my opinion whether it be science or religion/spiritualism-they are all explaining the same thing,albeit in much different ways-one may use a measuring instrument,the other uses their faith & belief.

I do see the point personally,science in the last 40 years or so has come much closer to being able to for the first time explain or give corroborative data to spiritual matters an aspects,extra-dimensional matters and aspects if you like.

Parallel universes,multiple dimensions for instance could be by virtue where angels/aliens traverse the cosmos.
the after-life very well could be just another dimension,a change of the dial,a new frequency that before was solely relied on pure faith,belief and imagination you could say.

I agree with you,religion is mans best attempt at explaining the unexplainable,the mysterious,unknowable wonders that keep us scratching our heads.

edit on 13-9-2011 by PerfectPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
It is many years since I posted on these boards, so long that I have forgotten my original e-mail address and have had to re-register. Please forgive an 'old wrinkly' if I have missed something but I would like to make the following comments.
Firstly, regarding the 'missing link' I read that this had been found through DNA research by comparing the DNA of Primates and Hominins just prior to homo sapien appearing. Whereas the Primate and Hominin DNA was found to be pretty identical with 48 chromosomes each (24 pairs of which we get 24 from our Mother and 24 from our Father) it was found that when we examined the DNA of the homo sapien (all from about 250,000 years ago) it was discovered that we had only 46 chromosomes. Further examination showed that somehow our second and third chromosomes had been fused together - not sideways but end to end forming one long strand. This, so the scientists claim, could have only been done under laboratory conditions and explains why there is no 'missing link' as this IS the missing link. Nevertheless we continued to live only marginally better by becoming hunter/gatherers for the next 240,000 years. Then, when we made the so called 'quantum leap' about 6,000 years BC (forgive my dating I could be somewhat out here) when we became farmers and builders (and apparently 'light skinned) it was found (and here I am not sure when this was discovered but it is a fact) that on further examination of our DNA it was found that no less than 9 of our chromosomes had been 'modified'. The way it was explained was that a section of the chromosome had been taken out, turned round, then turned upside down and then put back.
The scientists again state that this could only have happened under laboratory conditions!!??
Theorists/creationists etc have claimed meteor showers, a virus, evolution or a sudden shock could have caused this result but the Egg-Heads say that the odds of that happening are 50 followed by 18 zero's to 1.
The Sumerian tablets, translated by Sitchin (who's translation is a little flowery to say the least but cannot be totally ignored) give a wonderful explanation to all this claiming they were created by The Anunnaki (those who from the heavens came) and describe the genetic modification fully (according to ZS). Their own book of genesis appears to mirror the Bible version purported to have been written by Moses in 1500-1400 BC yet theirs was written some 2500 years prior.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
Forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere it has been a long time and I am still exploring the site.
edit on 4-10-2011 by OzTiger because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OzTiger
 


It is many years since I posted on these boards, so long that I have forgotten my original e-mail address and have had to re-register. Please forgive an 'old wrinkly' if I have missed something but I would like to make the following comments.

Welcome back! The more the merrier.


Firstly, regarding the 'missing link' I read that this had been found through DNA research by comparing the DNA of Primates and Hominins just prior to homo sapien appearing.

We are primates. The genetic difference you’re talking about is observed at the genus level , which is well below the order level. It’s functionally where we (genus Homo) split off from our nearest relative, chimpanzees (genus Pan). We still don’t know exactly where that divergence occurred.


Whereas the Primate and Hominin DNA was found to be pretty identical with 48 chromosomes each (24 pairs of which we get 24 from our Mother and 24 from our Father) it was found that when we examined the DNA of the homo sapien (all from about 250,000 years ago) it was discovered that we had only 46 chromosomes. Further examination showed that somehow our second and third chromosomes had been fused together - not sideways but end to end forming one long strand.

Yes, this is based on the existence of a central vestigial telomere and an additional vestigial centromere in human chromosome two. Also, chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B have near-identical DNA sequences to those found in human chromosome 2.


This, so the scientists claim, could have only been done under laboratory conditions and explains why there is no 'missing link' as this IS the missing link.

I don’t think any scientist would claim that this type of fusion can only occur in the lab given that centric fusions are observed in a large number of organisms, not just us. This sounds like a claim made by Lloyd Pye, a disciple of Sitchin, which has been shown to be factually incorrect but one which he continues to repeat ad nauseum in order to sell books.

What the OP is referring to as a “missing link”, which is really an outdated term only used in popular science journalism and gives a very misleading picture of common descent, is a organism exhibiting mosaic evolution that places it somewhere between Australopithecus and Homo.


Nevertheless we continued to live only marginally better by becoming hunter/gatherers for the next 240,000 years. Then, when we made the so called 'quantum leap' about 6,000 years BC (forgive my dating I could be somewhat out here) when we became farmers and builders (and apparently 'light skinned) it was found (and here I am not sure when this was discovered but it is a fact) that on further examination of our DNA it was found that no less than 9 of our chromosomes had been 'modified'. The way it was explained was that a section of the chromosome had been taken out, turned round, then turned upside down and then put back.
The scientists again state that this could only have happened under laboratory conditions!!??

The mutations you describe here, specifically referred to as inversions, are also commonly observed in nature. And, again, this sounds like the things that Lloyd Pye claims regularly. I don’t know of any reputable scientist that claims that inversions can only happen in a lab.


Theorists/creationists etc have claimed meteor showers, a virus, evolution or a sudden shock could have caused this result but the Egg-Heads say that the odds of that happening are 50 followed by 18 zero's to 1.

Not sure what you’re getting at here?


The Sumerian tablets, translated by Sitchin (who's translation is a little flowery to say the least but cannot be totally ignored) give a wonderful explanation to all this claiming they were created by The Anunnaki (those who from the heavens came) and describe the genetic modification fully (according to ZS). Their own book of genesis appears to mirror the Bible version purported to have been written by Moses in 1500-1400 BC yet theirs was written some 2500 years prior.

I guess you can say that Sitchin’s work can’t be ignored as long as you’re willing to overlook that fact that it’s a complete and total fabrication.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Thank you for a most informative and well constructed reply.
I am familiar with the writings and video's of both Zecharia Sitchin and (as you so aptly put it) his 'disciple' Lloyd Pye but came to the same conclusion as you that they, like Erich Von Daniken before them, were interpreting what they liked, how they liked, using the old adage "never let the truth get in the way of a good story". Their ultimate "God" being the holy dollar.
I have read Michael S Heiser's (a leading scholar in Hebrew) debunking of Sitchin as well as the debunking of Michael S Heiser. Michael unfortunately does not give his own interpretation of the Sumerian Tablets but certainly, through his obvious knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic(?), completely destroys Sitchins version of events.
I continue to keep an open mind on this subject as the experts in numerous scientific fields offer some very extreme alternative suggestions.
To lesser mortals like myself the explanations do not seem to answer the questions as to why we appear to have existed for some 4 million years without doing anything extraordinary until about 6000 years BC when we came virtually out of nowhere to become farmers and builders of huge megalithic structures and also changed colour from black to white. The tablets the Sumerians left, along with their artifacts are still open for interpretation and with the advent of a new computer program that can translate ancient writings (so I have read) perhaps we will learn something more positive from these ancient people. Yet another enigma is the recently discovered building at Goblekli Tepe which has been dated at 9,000 BC - 3,000 before the Sumerians. There is no evidence as yet as to who built the 'temple' but with another 350 structures yet to be excavated there could well be an answer.
Thank you once again. Very much appreciated.

edit on 5-10-2011 by OzTiger because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
44
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join