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: 93
31
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Now how do you not know that apes evolved from humans?


I never insinuated that humans evolved from apes. Both humans and apes had a common ancestor. That means we are genetically related, but separated. It's kind of like when you have twins born, but raise them in different parts of the world. They adapt entirely different from each-other and when they meet at an older age, they no longer appear identical, though you can see the similarities.

You see, it's not a straight line. Nothing is straight. It is a large, complicated mess, and that's what makes it interesting to me.




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Well thats true, my only claim is that humans did not originate from earth, just like it tells us in the bible.


Yes I know and the 'proof', the only 'proof' you have is our hands show we dont belong, oh and the why we aske why are we here.

Absolute nonsense. You are still not understanding common ancestor. You may not agree with it but you should understand what evolution says about it.

You have spent 30 years studying the supernatural and the another thing you appear not to have grasped is how to turn the television from the Sci Fi channel over to Discovery.

So your claim is humans did not originate from here. Show your evidence and stop talking about something you either cannot or refuse to grasp.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I never insinuated that humans evolved from apes. Both humans and apes had a common ancestor. That means we are genetically related, but separated. It's kind of like when you have twins born, but raise them in different parts of the world. They adapt entirely different from each-other and when they meet at an older age, they no longer appear identical, though you can see the similarities.
I understand what that means, its just throwing one more path of species, a though we branched off. Either way, your saying that human genese came into contact with this ancestor or that ancestor evoloved.

Either way you slice it, it would have died out from mutation evolution.




You see, it's not a straight line. Nothing is straight. It is a large, complicated mess, and that's what makes it interesting to me.
When you look at the end result (us) can you honestly say you see a lot of mess from this common ancestor? I don't think so. I guess you can try to make anything work but this goes back to the tornado assembling an air craft. It's just not possible. Not to mention that would have to happen to many at the same time, and many times to account for evolution. I'm soory many I just don't buy it. It might be easier to just say aliens put us here but that's not why I believe in it.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Yes I know and the 'proof', the only 'proof' you have is our hands show we dont belong, oh and the why we aske why are we here.
I never claimed that to be proof, you must have selective memory disfunction. I was merley making an observation.




Absolute nonsense. You are still not understanding common ancestor. You may not agree with it but you should understand what evolution says about it.
A common ancestor was introduced to this picture because its a major missing part of this whole ordeal. The problem is that bears don't mate with squids and humans don't mate with primates. It is perhaps the biggest snow job in the whole picture, and your buying it. There is no common ancestor that broke the traits of lineage which allowed us to share ancestory. And and all species mate within there species, and only there species.

When are you guys going to understand that polar bears breeding with kodiac bears is not impossible, they are both bears. Humans would only be able to reproduce with other humans. There has been nothing but failed attempts in trying to get other species to produce a human. So a common ancestor was invented (just like the rest of whole theory) to explain this missing gap between humans and primates. Give it up people.




You have spent 30 years studying the supernatural and the another thing you appear not to have grasped is how to turn the television from the Sci Fi channel over to Discovery.
Its easy for you to say but impossible for you to prove.




So your claim is humans did not originate from here. Show your evidence and stop talking about something you either cannot or refuse to grasp.
Well for starters, the bible points it out in obvious words that earth is not our home. Now if you don't know what that means, you might want to stick to evolution. Anyhow it says it multiple times and in many different ways. We don't fit in on this planet, never have and never will, in fact we are being rejected by the planet because we don't belong here

It all goes back to what I was saying ealier about each planet being produced in sort of an eco package. We are not eco friendly to this planet, which is why we are having so many problems. Our nice little scientists are purposly omitting the age of our race for what I consider to be obvious. All they are telling us is that they have found a common ancestor 200,000 years ago, and that they have mapped out the whole genome. Leaving out our true age. IMO I think its because our true age is larger than planet earth which would raise a lot of red flags and make them look stupid in the process. People simply don't want to believe there home is elsewhere, even though its plain as day in the bible.We have a major piece of history telling us its so, in addition to a plethora of side effects we suffer from because its so.

Your only claim that we are from here is based soley on overlap from other species. I don't want to make claims that a creator did it or that evolution didn't. What I will say is that there might be a creator at the molecular level and we are missing it. It's uncomprehendable to think that 5 million species on our planet alone were a product of slime. For this to happen it would take zillions of years. For humans to have evolved from a common ancesor would take trillions of years. Nature does not easily allow the differences here. Neither of which could have happend on this planet because earth is just a few billion years old. Also keep in mind that there is also proof of humans mixing with another race in the bible, to add more confusion.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I don't think you get this whole speciation thing. A new species doesn't emerge by two different species breeding. If they were actually able to produce viable offspring it would actually mean that they were the same species to begin with. A new species emerges when a generation of offspring accrues enough mutations that they are incapable of breeding with the previous generation, but are capable of breeding within their own generation. If you then extend this process out over millennia you are then able to produce such differences as those seen between humans and the other Great Apes. We have seen speciation occur in a number of plants and animals, so unlike many Creationists claim, it is not merely a theoretical concept. It has been empirically observed.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


There just isnt anything that proves it is what happend to us right? I read wiki on speciation but cant remember if it was controlled or natural selection.
edit on 3-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


And now all you have to do is offer up some evidence to back up the drivel that you think is the answer



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Well I didn't write the bible so its a little more than chance.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


There just isnt anything that proves it is what happend to us right? I read wiki on speciation but cant remember if it was controlled or natural selection.
edit on 3-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Clearly, you didn't fully read the article if you still believe there's no proof



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Well I didn't write the bible so its a little more than chance.


If you aren't certain who did write the Bible, then it can hardly be used as evidence. For all we know, a lot of the people who wrote the books in the Bible were on various psychedelics at the time. We know that people today are very good at writing fiction, so why is it so hard to imagine people using their imagination back then too? Being old does not increase validity.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   


Please don't pull that card... It makes you look silly. The whole, "it's just a theory" argument does not work. It has been shown on here, I don't know how many times, yet some people don't listen. Heliocentricism is JUST a theory. If you want to debate that, go ahead.


what do you mean dont pull that card? u use animals as your examples 99% of the time and apply it to humans. and where the hell are you going with a debate on if our solar system revolves around the sun and tyring to say its just as proven as evolution from ape to man.. sorryy pal. its so far from it its retarded. theres numerous evolutionists who cross over to religion cause they know the flaws themselves. (most so big they have to scrap their whole belief in it). its the stubborn arrogant ones trying to dawn a new religion that stay in the battle.



I never insinuated that humans evolved from apes. Both humans and apes had a common ancestor. That means we are genetically related, but separated. It's kind of like when you have twins born, but raise them in different parts of the world. They adapt entirely different from each-other and when they meet at an older age, they no longer appear identical, though you can see the similarities.


did u really just say this^ its a complete contridiction. its like saying im not related to my brother because i have different offspring. or were not related to our mom cause we are a new generation. ur ignorance is showing.
btw. apes are worrrllddssss away from being human. theres so many difference's its astounding. i really can give a # less about dna. but as u can see Oldest Known Pantherine Skull and Evolution of the Tiger
things do not change that drastically. even after 2.5 million years.

and how did u get this V

If you aren't certain who did write the Bible, then it can hardly be used as evidence.


from this?


Well I didn't write the bible so its a little more than chance.


he said he didn't write the bible. thats all.kinda jumpin the gun there.. why are you so opposed to the bible anyway? exactly what is so scary about haering about God? i listen to evolution talk all the time without a problem. all it pretty much says is to be a good person. whats bad about that? people say it contradicts itself but most dont even grasp the meaning of it or anything in it because they have never even cracked the thing except to look up a quote or two taking most lines out of the context of the whole story. btw its not exactly the scifi channel as stated above in comparison to discovery lol. 1. discovery channel is still the television id invest in a hire level of learning material, not a tv channel that has american choppers coming up after ancient aliens lol. 2. this will still feed you many theory's place in front of you as fact with tons of computer animation to connect dots for you. if it was clear as day proof they'd show u that instead of fake drawings and computer images. just because its on the discovery does not mean its the truth. u gotta use your own separation of fact and fiction for that. not just suck it all in like a jackass



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It's also highly possible that those who wrote the Bible suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy. It has been shown that this form of epilepsy can produce "religious experiences." It can also produce hypergraphia, or the overwhelming urge to write.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





If you aren't certain who did write the Bible, then it can hardly be used as evidence. For all we know, a lot of the people who wrote the books in the Bible were on various psychedelics at the time. We know that people today are very good at writing fiction, so why is it so hard to imagine people using their imagination back then too? Being old does not increase validity.
What do you mean by not being certain of who wrote it? They titled the sections by the name of who was behind it, it doesn't get anymore obvious than that. And not EVERYONE in the bible could be crazy, I allready assumed the possibility.

Being old does increase validity because its the oldest book we have. We don't have any from before that time proving Ted and Nimo evolved.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





If you aren't certain who did write the Bible, then it can hardly be used as evidence. For all we know, a lot of the people who wrote the books in the Bible were on various psychedelics at the time. We know that people today are very good at writing fiction, so why is it so hard to imagine people using their imagination back then too? Being old does not increase validity.
What do you mean by not being certain of who wrote it? They titled the sections by the name of who was behind it, it doesn't get anymore obvious than that. And not EVERYONE in the bible could be crazy, I allready assumed the possibility.

Being old does increase validity because its the oldest book we have. We don't have any from before that time proving Ted and Nimo evolved.


And the proof that they were who they said they were? There are already huge historical conflicts with some of the stories in the Bible, such as the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. This throws into question a lot of things.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Rebel I don't think you used the reply button cause I wanted to see who your replying to. Anyhow I decided to stick my nose in this convo with both of you in mind.


what do you mean dont pull that card? u use animals as your examples 99% of the time and apply it to humans. and where the hell are you going with a debate on if our solar system revolves around the sun and tyring to say its just as proven as evolution from ape to man.. sorryy pal. its so far from it its retarded. theres numerous evolutionists who cross over to religion cause they know the flaws themselves. (most so big they have to scrap their whole belief in it). its the stubborn arrogant ones trying to dawn a new religion that stay in the battle.
People using animals as examples of ancestory are missing one key possibility. Creation. There is the possibility that a creator had his hand in making all 5 million species on this planet. Personally I cant understand how they could happen otherwise. Believing we are all one giant mistake evolved from slim is like saying a tornado whipped through a junk yard and reasembled a jet airplan. I'm sorry man, there just seems to be some intelegence behind this all and scientists even admit to this in a documentry I watched. Where things start to get complex is what if that creator was a molecule? Who knows, I'm just throwing it out there cause it is possible. Not easy to understand though thats for sure.




I never insinuated that humans evolved from apes. Both humans and apes had a common ancestor. That means we are genetically related, but separated. It's kind of like when you have twins born, but raise them in different parts of the world. They adapt entirely different from each-other and when they meet at an older age, they no longer appear identical, though you can see the similarities.
As far as I'm concearned the whole ancestor card was just a BS move made up to place a safe link between us and primates, because we never will find that missing link. I can't believe you guys buy this crap. It's the same thing as another religion coming out. I have my own odd beliefs that I wouldn't say are inbetween you two. It's more along the lines of Sitchen, the bible read differently then taught, von daniken and Pye. Remember guys the biblle is a real book written by real people, and I strongly believe in it. Only problem is I think we were just being taught wrong. The way I understand it makes total sense and there are no unanswered questions. It's a book of intervention,(not religion) but faith was observed because thats what god wanted.




he said he didn't write the bible. thats all.kinda jumpin the gun there.. why are you so opposed to the bible anyway? exactly what is so scary about haering about God? i listen to evolution talk all the time without a problem. all it pretty much says is to be a good person. whats bad about that? people say it contradicts itself but most dont even grasp the meaning of it or anything in it because they have never even cracked the thing except to look up a quote or two taking most lines out of the context of the whole story. btw its not exactly the scifi channel as stated above in comparison to discovery lol. 1. discovery channel is still the television id invest in a hire level of learning material, not a tv channel that has american choppers coming up after ancient aliens lol. 2. this will still feed you many theory's place in front of you as fact with tons of computer animation to connect dots for you. if it was clear as day proof they'd show u that instead of fake drawings and computer images. just because its on the discovery does not mean its the truth. u gotta use your own separation of fact and fiction for that. not just suck it all in like a jackass
Well maybe its a good thing I don't get any of those channels now. I loved anchient aliens however. Now the movie Jackass is a kick in the pants LOL. I never said I'm opposed to the bible, I love the bible its the best supernatural read I have ever seen in my life. Not long ago you couldn't get me to touch a bible untill I realized all of that. It's just being taught incorrectly and I'm sure of it. I never say this but I would bet my life on it.God was a space alien for sure. I guess if anyone things that a charriot is not us UFO then your more than welcome to picture santa clause in a sleigh coming down to earth.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Which "missing link" do you want? We have quite a few of them. Just looking at hominids alone there is (in order of youngest to oldest):

Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo antecessor
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo georgicus
Homo habilis
Australopithecus boisei
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus africanus
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus anamensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis

After this we star moving away from the hominids. All of these species are related to Homo sapiens in one form or another and when looked at in order show a clear progression from Ape to Man. The term "missing link" is antiquated and really only sees use by the Creationist crowd who are either dissembling intentionally or are ignorant of any actual progress in evolutionary biology since Darwin founded the field.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


You provided 19 sub species. I wonder how many could be an actuall alien.
Anyhow, is there any proof we decended from them?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Do you want the fossil evidence or the genetic evidence? Who am I kidding? Creationists don't accept either as forms of evidence despite the fact that all of their "evidence" comes from a book. Whether that book is The Bible or The 12th Planet doesn't matter, the "rebuttals" are always the same.

Also, those are all separate species. An example of a subspecies is something like Homo sapiens sapiens. The first part of a biological classification is the genus and the second part is the species.
edit on 12/4/2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/4/2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I think we need to go back to the molecular level and ask again how did DNA, the molecule of life come into being?
a series of random collisions or was it designed?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I think its easy to be fooled in to believing this could be an ancestor of ours, while I'm thinking its easier to believe they might not be from earth. What exactly do we have that links them to us, I'll take what ever you got, I'm not picky, a poke in the eye would work at this point.




top topics



 
31
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join