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.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.
Well I'm just missing the connection here. What connects us? A poke in the eye would work at this point but I'm not seeing where our paths crossed.
Are you serious? How is it being "fooled" into believing it is an ancestor? These bones were found in ravines for the most part as FOSSILS. They are not lies being made up by magical atheists just to mess with your brain.
I see. So an asumption is being made that we evolved because we share almost every trait? IMO they could just as easily be aliens. Are you making assumptions simply because they are humanoid? Remember that doesn't mean human, much less are we able to verify a connection. It's like your calling a bicycle a car simply becuase it has tires. It's still only a bicycle. Now you might confuse this because they are both vehicles.
We have bones right now that share almost every trait with modern humans, but have a slightly smaller brain, a slightly different chin, things like that. The farther back we go in our discoveries of these fossils, the more you see these minute changes adding up until, wouldn't you know it, it looks just like the ancestor of the apes?
I think what this comes down to is numbers, it's probability. I could say, and believe the chances of those being aliens outweigh evolutions chances, I'm sure you would disagree. Maybe we could go with another idea here. Lets look at how we have over 4 million people claiming to have made contact with an alien species. If we also have 4 million bones from ancestors, well I would be tied here. But we don't, we have 19 species, and in fact have reports of more than 19 different aliens. FYI over 1/2 are grey aliens. Aliens are also mentioned in the bible many times.
It's based on similarity, and if you think it's all just a lie to detract you from your magic fairy-tale, then go ahead and live in ignorance.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by itsthetooth
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.
Execellent explanation btw. Nicely put.
If each individual is essentially on its own path and capable of divergence when mutations have passed the point of no return. How can a whole generation of like individuals come into being at the same time, with the same mutations, making breeding possible.?
If the inherited information says 80% duck that leaves 20% of possibilities for every individual to start diverging in its own unique way, forever creating a species of one.
Is this the root of the hopeful monsters argument.?
Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
reply to post by Varemia
For the sake of argument, would this depend on what gene/genes where changed.? and the breeding success of the individual.? ...size, color etc things important to courtship.
Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
reply to post by Varemia
How far could a limited gene pool take a species.? could there be a scenario whereby a species returns to a type that existed in the past.? a set of changes that returns, and is still viable because the favored environment has changed very little over time...dry arid, wet marsh, etc.
Well I was only going by what someone on this form produced. Natural selection IMO is a big joke. Speciation has been observed at the molecular level, and I know this and accept it. The problem is macroevolution is not possible within the time limitations of our planet. Which once again makes me look at another reason we aren't from earth. It would take trillions of years for a macroevolution to produce a common ancestor. Anyway you slice it, its a different species and if a species was able to evolove in any giant steps, it would die out. When I say evolve in small ways I'm referring to options in that species, like brown eyes, or blue eyes, not night vision eyes
Itsthetooth argues from personal ignorance, it seems, since he refuses to read the books on evolution I suggested. He shows a fundamental lack in understanding of the most basic principles and then attacks the more complex ones he fails to understand, acting as if his analogies about technology's advancements are relevant to how evolution works. Evolution is not random, it is accumulated.
How far could a limited gene pool take a species.? could there be a scenario whereby a species returns to a type that existed in the past.? a set of changes that returns, and is still viable because the favored environment has changed very little over time...dry arid, wet marsh, etc.
Actually out of all of the aleged proof we have that has been shot down, Lloyd Pye I believe has produced one that has convinced me is real. The star child.
At present the probability of your scenario is 0. It has yet to be proven that extraterrestrial life even exists, let alone is capable of traveling to Earth. On the other hand speciation has been empirically observed. So, in this case I will go with the premise that has actually been shown to exist. As for evidence this site should give you a pretty good start.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
The problem is macroevolution is not possible within the time limitations of our planet. Which once again makes me look at another reason we aren't from earth. It would take trillions of years for a macroevolution to produce a common ancestor.