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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 279
31
<< 276  277  278    280  281  282 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
ok...and you think like others that we should be placed in this class of primates?

i don't agree. I think we are apples and oranges at this point. We are like NONE of them.. but they are a lot like each other in numerous ways. Us? Totally and completely different.


We have every single trait that we use to identify apes. Even our dentition (tooth pattern) is the same as the other apes. Seriously, take some sort of bio anth class. It will increase the size of your understanding.


can you say brain?

we are NOTHING like any animal on planet earth with some of the crap we do. we build stuff, we drive cars. this isn't just about physical appearance. they can't even IDENTIFY and fully understand all traits so how can you even make the claim that every single trait is the same?




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
ok...and you think like others that we should be placed in this class of primates?

i don't agree. I think we are apples and oranges at this point. We are like NONE of them.. but they are a lot like each other in numerous ways. Us? Totally and completely different.



We have every single trait that we use to identify apes. Even our dentition (tooth pattern) is the same as the other apes. Seriously, take some sort of bio anth class. It will increase the size of your understanding.



can you say brain?

we are NOTHING like any animal on planet earth with some of the crap we do. we build stuff, we drive cars. this isn't just about physical appearance. they can't even IDENTIFY and fully understand all traits so how can you even make the claim that every single trait is the same?
My favorite is the term common ancestor, which has replaced the old missing link.
The reason why they had to revise this term is because they know they will never find a species that proves a connection between humans and apes, so the closest they could get to it was common ancestor.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
ok...and you think like others that we should be placed in this class of primates?

i don't agree. I think we are apples and oranges at this point. We are like NONE of them.. but they are a lot like each other in numerous ways. Us? Totally and completely different.



We have every single trait that we use to identify apes. Even our dentition (tooth pattern) is the same as the other apes. Seriously, take some sort of bio anth class. It will increase the size of your understanding.



can you say brain?

we are NOTHING like any animal on planet earth with some of the crap we do. we build stuff, we drive cars. this isn't just about physical appearance. they can't even IDENTIFY and fully understand all traits so how can you even make the claim that every single trait is the same?
My favorite is the term common ancestor, which has replaced the old missing link.
The reason why they had to revise this term is because they know they will never find a species that proves a connection between humans and apes, so the closest they could get to it was common ancestor.


i don't know, man.

this monkey brain shlt would explain a lot about some of the guys i've dated.


lol... no, i just can't wrap my head around this and they seem to just make excuse after excuse but they don't even understand OUR CURRENT DNA fully.

lofty claims, lofty claims...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer


well, where the hell have you been the last two pages. LOTS of people say that and i went back and forth a few times about that article YOU posted trying to establish whether or not they thought we were still from chimps or that they had now come up with some other idea and the answer i got in so many words was no, still chimps... just more uncertin of how to establish which traits did what because apes have been evolving too!


Did you miss the part where I said I gave you the wrong link and apologized?

Guess you did.


that is what we have been talking about and this is what i have read all along of evolutionists theories... that they think we evolved from chimps as opposed to gorillas and orangutans.


Okay, I think I see where you're going with that. Let me spell it out for you:

15 MYA: The great apes--Hominidae--speciate from the ancestors of the lesser apes (gibbons). Hominidae are the great apes and consists of the genera Homo, Pan (chimps), Gorilla (gorillas), and Pongo (orangutans).

13 MYA: Homininae splits from organutans. The Homininae are humans, gorillas, chimps.

10 MYA: Hominini splits from gorillas. Hominini are us (plus Neanderthals, etc.) and the two species of chimps.

7 MYA: Hominina splits from chimps. Hominina are us, Neanderthals, H. erectus, and everything in between.

Clearly, we did not evolve from chimps. We evolved in the same taxa with chimps till about 7 million years ago, and then speciated.



and since we are so unlike apes and now it seem that you claim they think that we have some UNKNOWN common ancestor... that really kind of weakens the argument for unassisted evolution in general.

Technically all animals have a common ancestor but we can;t describe what that would be either, but it doesn't change the fact that we all come from the same stuff.

so now, it could be anything... we still have absolutely no explanation for the split because we have no idea what he any missing link is.

I, personally, like my one big split theory at the origins of life on planet earth.

screw the fossil record. They clearly glued that junk together.

edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)


Are you sure you're not Toothy posting under another name? You're sure sounding like him.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MISSING LINK.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer


well, where the hell have you been the last two pages. LOTS of people say that and i went back and forth a few times about that article YOU posted trying to establish whether or not they thought we were still from chimps or that they had now come up with some other idea and the answer i got in so many words was no, still chimps... just more uncertin of how to establish which traits did what because apes have been evolving too!


Did you miss the part where I said I gave you the wrong link and apologized?

Guess you did.


that is what we have been talking about and this is what i have read all along of evolutionists theories... that they think we evolved from chimps as opposed to gorillas and orangutans.


Okay, I think I see where you're going with that. Let me spell it out for you:

15 MYA: The great apes--Hominidae--speciate from the ancestors of the lesser apes (gibbons). Hominidae are the great apes and consists of the genera Homo, Pan (chimps), Gorilla (gorillas), and Pongo (orangutans).

13 MYA: Homininae splits from organutans. The Homininae are humans, gorillas, chimps.

10 MYA: Hominini splits from gorillas. Hominini are us (plus Neanderthals, etc.) and the two species of chimps.

7 MYA: Hominina splits from chimps. Hominina are us, Neanderthals, H. erectus, and everything in between.

Clearly, we did not evolve from chimps. We evolved in the same taxa with chimps till about 7 million years ago, and then speciated.



and since we are so unlike apes and now it seem that you claim they think that we have some UNKNOWN common ancestor... that really kind of weakens the argument for unassisted evolution in general.

Technically all animals have a common ancestor but we can;t describe what that would be either, but it doesn't change the fact that we all come from the same stuff.

so now, it could be anything... we still have absolutely no explanation for the split because we have no idea what he any missing link is.

I, personally, like my one big split theory at the origins of life on planet earth.

screw the fossil record. They clearly glued that junk together.

edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)


Are you sure you're not Toothy posting under another name? You're sure sounding like him.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MISSING LINK.


hmmm... saying we are the same person because we might not have the same views of evolution as yours. i don't even know if i agree with everything he says yet so just hold up before you make me and him the same person!


way to be premature. you better get something to slow that thing down.

and yes... i saw the link but it read MRCA.... and like i have said this is not what i said at all.

take a look at this will you... the first split you mention just lumps us in with the others... no species relation, no mixing and mingling.

the next split is us, chimps and gorillas... different species, no mixing and no mingling

the next split is us from pan...still no relation in species and course never any mixing.

they could have done the exact same thing with a freaking species of flower because it is just a man made category that shows no relation prior to your example of the first split yo mentioned. you have to go back BEFORE that and describe WHY they put homo in with the apes in the FIRST PLACE.

If we truly split from another species, there should be a missing link.

if they cannot explain the relation of homo to the rest of gibbons then there is no justification taht they should have ever been put in that catagory, therefore there was absolutely no problem with homo splitting right down the line under the umbrella of this whole thing while never actually having any relation.

OF course there is no missing link when the tree is constructed in such a misleading way. homo is just riding down the line like an unrelated hitch hiker.

please, don't just read books and quote them. THINK.

this actually looks like a conspiracy that some assholes just designed and said... let's just throw ourselves in.... umm...errr...ohhh..HERE, yeah, right here.

now watch this... split split split ... no one will ever know.
edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

hmmm... saying we are the same person because we might not have the same views of evolution as yours. i don't even know if i agree with everything he says yet so just hold up before you make me and him the same person!


way to be premature. you better get something to slow that thing down.


And I think you need to stop popping off your mouth, kiddo. Close your mouth and open your brain.


take a look at this will you... the first split you mention just lumps us in with the others... no species relation, no mixing and mingling.

the next split is us, chimps and gorillas... different species, no mixing and no mingling

the next split is us from pan...still no relation in species and course never any mixing.


How do you know that? The genus homo didn't exist until H. halibus or the recent discovery H. gautengensis. We are NOW in the taxa Homininae, but as a genus Homo didn't exist until about 2.4 million years ago. See Australopithecus garhi, which is the most recent Australopithecus found and is in the family Hominidae. Anything newer than that is genus Homo. So if you insist on labeling something a missing link, there you are.


they could have done the exact same thing with a freaking species of flower because it is just a man made category that shows no relation prior to your example of the first split yo mentioned. you have to go back BEFORE that and describe WHY they put homo in with the apes in the FIRST PLACE.


Gee, maybe because we share a lot of morphological features with them? The genetic evidence just backs it up, so I'm not sure what you're getting all frothy about here.


If we truly split from another species, there should be a missing link.


One last time. There's no such thing as a missing link. That's something creationists love to tout because they don't understand evolution at the most basic level.


if they cannot explain the relation of homo to the rest of gibbons then there is no justification taht they should have ever been put in that catagory, therefore there was absolutely no problem with homo splitting right down the line under the umbrella of this whole thing while never actually having any relation.


Hint: humans are not related to gibbons. None of the apes are related to gibbons and haven't been for 15 million years. Now, the apes and the gibbons share a common ancestor.


OF course there is no missing link when the tree is constructed in such a misleading way. homo is just riding down the line like an unrelated hitch hiker.

please, don't just read books and quote them. THINK.


I beg your pardon, but unless you have experience in this branch of the sciences I'd say you're the one who's not thinking. You're just parroting what you Ancient Aliens friends tell you. It's just a convenient excuse to be brainwashed and NOT think for yourself.

It's up to you. I prefer to not wallow in ignorance and superstition.
edit on 3/5/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





this actually looks like a conspiracy that some assholes just designed and said... let's just throw ourselves in.... umm...errr...ohhh..HERE, yeah, right here. now watch this... split split split ... no one will ever know.


No not really, your ignoring the DNA information that backs up the hypothesis.
Science seeks to correct itself if new findings contradict current theory's.
Your ideas are unfounded and if they held any water it would be discovered and corrected.
Please check out the links Here
DNA does not lie, it's in your blood as you sit there confused by your lineage.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





this actually looks like a conspiracy that some assholes just designed and said... let's just throw ourselves in.... umm...errr...ohhh..HERE, yeah, right here. now watch this... split split split ... no one will ever know.


No not really, your ignoring the DNA information that backs up the hypothesis.
Science seeks to correct itself if new findings contradict current theory's.
Your ideas are unfounded and if they held any water it would be discovered and corrected.
Please check out the links Here
DNA does not lie, it's in your blood as you sit there confused by your lineage.


Thank you.

In your opinion, am I not explaining this clearly enough or something?
edit on 3/5/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





this actually looks like a conspiracy that some assholes just designed and said... let's just throw ourselves in.... umm...errr...ohhh..HERE, yeah, right here. now watch this... split split split ... no one will ever know.


No not really, your ignoring the DNA information that backs up the hypothesis.
Science seeks to correct itself if new findings contradict current theory's.
Your ideas are unfounded and if they held any water it would be discovered and corrected.
Please check out the links Here
DNA does not lie, it's in your blood as you sit there confused by your lineage.


Thank you.

In your opinion, am I not explaining this clearly enough or something?
edit on 3/5/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)


Clear as a bell

I'm enjoying your insight keep up the good work, it's nice to see some common sense in all this dribble.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





this actually looks like a conspiracy that some assholes just designed and said... let's just throw ourselves in.... umm...errr...ohhh..HERE, yeah, right here. now watch this... split split split ... no one will ever know.


No not really, your ignoring the DNA information that backs up the hypothesis.
Science seeks to correct itself if new findings contradict current theory's.
Your ideas are unfounded and if they held any water it would be discovered and corrected.
Please check out the links Here
DNA does not lie, it's in your blood as you sit there confused by your lineage.


Thank you.

In your opinion, am I not explaining this clearly enough or something?
edit on 3/5/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)


Clear as a bell

I'm enjoying your insight keep up the good work, it's nice to see some common sense in all this dribble.


Right back at ya.


Anyone who doubts we need to step up our science education in this country should just look at this thread.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 


For Satin,

ETA: See here.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunnywaaahhh!



haha... yer pissed! me likes it! because you have no place accusing me of being an alt Jack!


i don't care what you think you are accomplishing in this field but i'm sure it's next to nothing at all if you can't see that even though gibbons may not be related to great apes now, that chart has them lumped into the same superfamily, which should mean something. it should show some type of actual relation. SHOULD. Looking back, you should be able to relate such a split prior to it happening, but homo was in no diect relation to the rest of the apes. Just put there because of what? tell me, cause he has hands? so do raccoons in a way, because apes can stand up? so can kangaroos, because he has no hair on his face? neither do dolphins.

oh...oh... I know!

BECAUSE YOU LOOK LIKE A MONKEEEEY

AND YOU SMELL LIKE ONE TOO!

now then, lol.... if you are so high and mighty brotha man!... on your ego trippin darwin laden recitals of things which never seem to prove anything concrete, then it should be no problem for you to explain the relations and go one step further back and tell us how homo got stuck in there to begin with and who else they tried to throw in there before THAT


hell, maybe it was sloths ( i know sloths are in a different family, i am just making an example out of you)... they have hands, right? kinda bare faces... hairy bodies like apes, round eyes, hang on to trees like monkeys... makes just as much sense as the way you are trying to relate human and ape attributes

that's going pretty far back, right? sloths. you know, just an idea (for my hypothetical tauntings about hypothetical charts and vague anatomical relations) But, yeah, lets pretend it was sloths just for example. that still doesn't make them related to humans in the sense that evolutionists need it to be related to show that we evolved from them? (i only use sloths even though these charts already say it is a different family because i'm not seeing where the superfamily humans got stuck in goes further back and it doesn't matter because it still a separate species and even according to these charts, always has been... was never really related to any others. if you DID make an even bigger family trying to find the relation between gibbons and homo it would only involve an even broader array of species ... and even more unrelated species.
... because like some have been trying to tell you, it doesn't equate to actual relation in a sense that we started out as any other species because homo is there from the very beginning of this chart, yet as his own species and only branches off DOWNWARD in relation with neanderthal. my opinion is that what would be above the superfamily would only be the apes with maybe a few other like species and not homo because he really shouldn't have been put in there to begin with. since he starts out at the top, is your common sense too broken to see that it says NOTHING about where he is FROM, only that he got put in there. it stops short of telling us ANYTHING about his common ancestor with the rest of the apes. as for genetics backing it up, you can't really claim that after posting an article YOURSELF that clearly states that they can't really know for sure because now, all the genetics are more evolved so it makes it too difficult to see which traits split where... so now you are arguing with your own article it seems and just make some vague claim "the genetics just back it up" you haven't seen, much less be able to show these genetics, which now they are claiming is too evolved to be able to sort out. HOW CONVENIENT!


missing link? if homo is truly related in a sense that evolutionists need it to be to back up that we came from a common ancestor, that common ancestor would be contained in the chart that SHOULD be above the superfamily chart, but it isn't there because they have not really found a link... a common ancestor that these differing species would have branched from.

ancient aliens?

superstition?

we are looking at the evolutionary charts and i am pointing out that should be so obvious to someone with schooling in this field... there should be a common ancestor or AT LEAST some branching off with a related species of another TRUE PRIMATE...and not just the neanderthal man who i don't think is a primate either.

please do not brag about your field and your schooling because it makes it look like shameful waste of time.

humans not related to gibbons? NOOOOOO! Really?

apes and gibbons share a common ancestor? sure, but so should humans...and evolution as FACT should clearly be able to do at least that.

until you can show that in the charts or prove it with genetics now too evolved to fully trace... you got no proof.


edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 


For Satin,

ETA: See here.

en.wikipedia.org...


The charts claim to go back 15MYA and this is 13MYA so he should be in there, right?

so now tell me which one of your links is false, because it must be one or the other.

also, this is pretty indicative that it's not coming from this touted knowledge of the filed but that you searched for it being unhappy with your last attempt and now you have three different links which show inconsistencies which each other.

BRAVO!!!

Good job!

also, i love the "believed by SOME part"

Who was it that kept saying BUT ITS PROVEN FACT.

Uh, this sounds like theory "believed by some"...yep, that's what it says.

forget 13MYA... You have to go back further than that now if homo was lumped in with gibbons 15MYA, but this pieroapithecus lived 13MYA.

that in itself suggest right there it is NOT the common ANCESTOR (meaning they lived prior to the lesser apes, not BEFORE and prior to the great apes, not DURING)

suggesting that what this really is, is just another primate who MIGHT have a common ancestor with humans and other apes... but is not in itself a common ancestor and for [snip] SAKE... you ought to have the sense to know that right off the bat, because it is a PRIMATE, not a hominid.. or hominid closer to primates. it is simply describes as primate and doesn't seem to me to have more compelling likenesses that to humans than any other primate. making it DOUBTFULLY the common ancestor of what humans branched from.

common sense common sense.

not to mention as the article states, in spain?


13MYA... the common ancestor of apes living in africa around that time or before to 15MYA

GENIUS!
edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/3/12 by masqua because: removed profanity



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
FURTHERMORE... read about oliver the walking bonabo that they just KNEW was some type of hybrid or missing link. he smoked, he hit on the ladies. always trying get him some and had a personality that was human like... but try as they may to genetically prove that he was closer to humans than most bonabos, he was simply just a smart bonabo with good posture and a thing for human chicks.

Any fossil in the fossil record could be a genetically distant yet somewhat related (as all mammals are actually VERY related in most case) to a primate that merely appears to have more human attributes.

oliver did. He walked like a damn man.

if they had found HIS fossils way back when before they could test his genetics, they would have had a FIELD DAY calling his ass the missing link. Hell, some people still do despite the facts.
edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
What seems to be very clear that despite tracing human DNA all the way back, it still does not explain the accelerated jumps in evolution beyond what is seen in any other species.

What accelerated jumps? This is the type of nonsense people are talking about in this thread. Accelerated jumps? So to you, 300-400 thousand years is accelerated? Where's the proof?


DESPITE how it happened, evolution must have been assisted and I am leaning toward this radiation theory of a certain unusual type. Some type of pure light that does not produce the more unwanted effects of light that is less pure.

I'd like to read more about this theory, you got a link?


I'm not saying i think viruses are impossible, but when you look at what we know of viruses, they seldom have our best interest at heart and i'm not sure if i buy that by becoming immune to them, we evolve. viruses are tiny things of a dark nature and it seems to me that if they were hvoisting us to a new kind of being... it would be to a tinier, darker more unclean and contagious one..

Viruses have their own best interest "at heart". They evolve and humans evolve immunities. It's verified in a lab.


Do not forget that other species get viruses and do not make leaps and bounds in evolution compared to the human model.

What about the whale? I'd say going from sea to land and then back to sea is a much bigger jump than humans and their ancestors have made in the past 2 million years. I'd like a source on this sudden leaps and bounds.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


they don't jump species.

other animals do not jump species, they merely change a bit. Horses get bigger and stronger the more they are used, big lizards get smaller and less carnivorous the less other species and the earth takes their bullcrap, giraffes necks get longer the taller trees get... sloths get tinier the more rare they become after having most of their slow asses get eaten by dinosaurs. more than one of these examples have had PLENTY of time to evolve having been around way longer than us, but not a one of them has learned to read unless you count Mr Ed.

now as I have said before... go marry a chimp and have it's babies.

OH OH..wait a second. that's right!

YOU CAN'T.

cause the sh!t don't work that way since we have..erm... JUMPED SPECIES.

Proof?

Link?

How about just open your eyes.

better yet, go find a nice sweet chimp and just try to start a family (even though it won't work medically) and when you get busted for bestiality.... Show the police this IRREFUTABLE THREAD.

i'm sure they will totally and completely change their minds and apologize to you and your girlfriend.

bananas anyone?



Oh YEAH... I DO BELIEVE SO!

edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)


Alright I give up. This thread is officially the haven for weirdo hypotheses, and scientific ignorance in general. I posted the evolution free dvds a few pages back. Perhaps its a good idea to familiarize yourself with it BEFORE talking about it. Knowledge is power. Don't be this guy.
Nobody likes a clown.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
maybe we are no more related to chimps are than horses are to dogs... but more so than horses are to mice.

see what i am saying.

one big split out of the ooze or something.


The fossil record kills that theory. It shows that certain traits were developed at different times, and it displays times when creatures looked like a combination of "different" creatures we have today.



i can't depend on the fossil record though... I don't trust it at all. way too much room for guesses.

i have heard that some archeologists have tried putting different animal bones together and been caught and proven wrong doing such thing but who knows.... could be. i still can't trust the fossil records.

i don't think it is reliable although i do believe some things can be learned from it of course, but they should be taken with a grain of.... sand.



I don't think cars are reliable, because they have recalls and such from time to time. Sort of like your argument here.

Be careful not to think of evolution as a linear system. Evolution is much more complicated, and works in arrays, built off of other arrays. For example you might start off with a certain species, then branch out in all directions, to new species, all branched off the one, then continuing on for each sucessive species that survives, after that. This is why using chimps traits' to base our common ancestor's traits can be inaccurate. Its like trying to figure out what a 1950's ford car will be like, after analyzing a 2012 BMW, and saying they're both cars, so they must have similar traits.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
maybe we were NEVER apes... we have just always been closely related.




We are still apes.

en.wikipedia.org...



uh, no... we are NOT apes.

we are a different species than apes now... obviously.


Ape is not a species. It's an arbitrary classification of primates. en.wikipedia.org...


ok...and you think like others that we should be placed in this class of primates?

i don't agree. I think we are apples and oranges at this point. We are like NONE of them.. but they are a lot like each other in numerous ways. Us? Totally and completely different.


We are extremely like each other, where do you get this from?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
ok, maybe i read something wrong... been up all night. i swear i thought it said something along those lines...about devolving or evolutionary decline or something....

I'm trying to read through the part where they start talking about apes instead of chimps saying that gorillas and chimps actually make a poor model of what might be our ancestors...and that apes have evolved fast in comparison... is that what it is saying. so now it's apes and not chimps.

Our last common ancestor was neither chimp nor human. That would be Ardi or something like Ardi. And chimps are apes just as we are.

en.wikipedia.org...



We still can't make babies with apes and I'm sure that many on here would like a very detailed explanation of what is preventing them from doing this.


We already know what's preventing us from doing that.








Not Last common ancestor.... just ancestor. in this case the wide held opinion among evolutionists is that it IS a chimp.

and the last part was a joke obviously.


Actually, not ancestor at all. I gave you the wrong link. My bad.

en.wikipedia.org...



but wait.... didn't you or someone else i was just talking to just say that they STILL think we came from chimps?

so how can the term ancestor not be correct?


Who the hell ever said we came from chimps? Nobody!

Humans and chimps and gorillas and all the apes have a common ancestor. Period.


well, where the hell have you been the last two pages. LOTS of people say that and i went back and forth a few times about that article YOU posted trying to establish whether or not they thought we were still from chimps or that they had now come up with some other idea and the answer i got in so many words was no, still chimps... just more uncertin of how to establish which traits did what because apes have been evolving too!

YEP

that is what we have been talking about and this is what i have read all along of evolutionists theories... that they think we evolved from chimps as opposed to gorillas and orangutans.

yep... that what has been said by MANY...and not just in this thread.

I think we are going STRAIGHT back to the fact that they simply don't know.

and since we are so unlike apes and now it seem that you claim they think that we have some UNKNOWN common ancestor... that really kind of weakens the argument for unassisted evolution in general.

Technically all animals have a common ancestor but we can;t describe what that would be either, but it doesn't change the fact that we all come from the same stuff.

so now, it could be anything... we still have absolutely no explanation for the split because we have no idea what he any missing link is.

I, personally, like my one big split theory at the origins of life on planet earth.

screw the fossil record. They clearly glued that junk together.

edit on 5-3-2012 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)


I think you have a kink in your understanding. Try to pay close attention, because others have already tried to explain this to you, and you still are showing that you don't understand. We can't have evolved from chimps. Impossible. We were both an array, of a "common ancestor" who would have had, as we "suspect" similar traits to man, and apes. The common ancestor, evolved into man, monkeys, and apes, and possible other species. Again thinking in a linear fashion (i.e. monkeys, chimps, humans) this isn't the order of things, and is not how evolution works. It is much more complicated. What the discussion going on in the last few pages, is whether or not this "common ancestor" is more like a chimp, than a human, or vice versa, but it could also be equally different from both.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by BlackSatinDancer
ok...and you think like others that we should be placed in this class of primates?

i don't agree. I think we are apples and oranges at this point. We are like NONE of them.. but they are a lot like each other in numerous ways. Us? Totally and completely different.


We have every single trait that we use to identify apes. Even our dentition (tooth pattern) is the same as the other apes. Seriously, take some sort of bio anth class. It will increase the size of your understanding.


can you say brain?

we are NOTHING like any animal on planet earth with some of the crap we do. we build stuff, we drive cars. this isn't just about physical appearance. they can't even IDENTIFY and fully understand all traits so how can you even make the claim that every single trait is the same?


It isn't just about physical appearance but that accounts for a lot. We have the same tendencies as well, we use tools, hunt, gather, socialize. We have a lot of similar traits, of course when you go, well I don't see their cars or buildings so they aren't anything like us. Makes no sense at all. African bushmen are more like apes, in that they live off the land, rather than technological industry, does that make them a different species?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Isn't it obvious that the homo genus originated on Venus? There was a time, millions of years ago when Venus had a viable climate, oceans and an atmosphere comparable to our own today. Nuclear wars polluted the atmosphere so badly that the only option was escape. They used the best of their technology to save a chosen few. They crash landed in Africa, amongst early Australopithecus. The rest is history. Evolution is still real. Just different.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 276  277  278    280  281  282 >>

log in

join