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.

 

If we evolved from monkeys and evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys today?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Neanderthals not closely related to modern humans? DUH! There were a separate species. Period. Scientist have doubt that they could have interbred with Cro-magnon (Modern humans) I put you in the same category as scientists that have no room for religious thought. Religion and science are closely related and everyone needs to get over that and get on with it. God left clues everywhere for us to unravel, so that we may attain enlightenment and maybe even understand God and the universe from the microscopic to the grand.




posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   





these are just a few examples of evolution, in the own human. different skulls of different evolutionary stages of the human. As for the missing link between man and monkey, it's bones will most likely be found deep in Africa, where we all started out from.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Archeopteryx comes to mind... Creature has clearly reptillian features, and yet also feathers... There is a clear connection with birds and their reptillian ancestors. Heck, just look at a bird's talons, and then an iguana claw...

Then of course, you have vestigal leg bones in whales...vestigal tails on humans, etc. Even our own nails are evidence....from when they used to be claws. How about that humans and chimps share 99% of the same DNA?


Archaeoraptor is a hoax, albeit a very good one. National Geographic has recanted their claim the bird-reptile was a missing evolutionary link.

www.answersingenesis.org...

The Vestigial bones found in whales are actually quite useful and different depending on the sex of the whale. In male whales the bones help penile erections and in females aid in vaginal contractions.

As for sharing DNA


A most revealing evaluation of the current distortions like Wises of genetic information came in an editorial in the New Scientist. "Unfortunately, it has become fashionable to stress that chimpanzees and humans must have staggeringly similar psychologies because they share 98.4 per cent of their DNA. But this misses the point: genomes are not cake recipes. A few tiny changes in a handful of genes controlling the development of the [cerebral] cortex could easily have a disproportionate impact. A creature that shares 98.4 per cent of its DNA with humans is not 98.4 per cent human, any more than a fish that shares, say, 40 per cent of its DNA with us is 40 per cent human." The gap between probing termite mounds with a twig and constructing the space shuttle or making several painfully learned signs to communicate wants and declaiming the Gettysburg Address is the difference between 100% and 98.4%. Some would say the soul is in there too."


www.amprogress.org...



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Duh Kapitan:

LOL. In 1997 the scientific communitity was turned upside-down when they discovered this.

And I suppose you knew all along that we didn't come from Neanderthals?

Yeah, right!

Non-religous? LOL...you have NO idea!

Classify me and I'll classify you; Dolt!

Cheers


JS



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I'm unclear on this, Gazrok spoke of the ARCHAEOPTERYX which is most certainly NOT a hoax. If you mean the bird/dino "missing link" found in China, yes that was unfortunately hoaxed. But that was not the Archaeopteryx.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Y'know jumpspace, I can change my views as evidence, good evidence is presented. Christian zealots do not. I didn't mean to imply that you are a dolt. As you threw at me. I consider '97 a while ago now. I keep up on news from the world of paleontology. So it wasn't news to me. Get the bible blinders off, just for a moment. And try not to call people names, it weakens your position.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I find it funny, we can throw at them fossil evidence, heavy research statements etc, but what can they throw at us to proove that "god" made us into humans???? bible quotes?



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Der Kapitan:

I only responded 'cause you said "duh" (implying I was an idiot). I do not follow paleontology and as such didn't know this till I did a bit of research myself


Fair enough re name calling - I normally don't throw stones unless someone directs one at me - as you did


I myself am religous to the point when I am my own religion - a bit of Christianity, Islam etc etc. I personally believe modern religion is pompous! Look at the catholic religion - they used to promote a belief in re-incarnation until people said "oh, well - I'll join in my next life"...they then stopped that and now they don't preach it anymore.

As for the scrolls that are "kept hidden" to support their beliefs...well, that's another story


Regarding where we came from - who knows? We may have come from an evolutionary perspective or from some completely different direction...

Cheers

JS

[edit on 31-8-2004 by jumpspace]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
My mistake is that I think everyone (here) is as geeky as me and would know about what I know. I made the bad assumption that the news of neaderthal was common knowledge. I promise there is more than enough room for spiritual thought in my book. Ultimately science and religion need to resolve the percieved divisions between them. I am a little too passionate about some issues. I hope we can get past this. Sorry. My bad.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
I'm unclear on this, Gazrok spoke of the ARCHAEOPTERYX which is most certainly NOT a hoax. If you mean the bird/dino "missing link" found in China, yes that was unfortunately hoaxed. But that was not the Archaeopteryx.


You are correct I misread Gazrok's Post. As for Archaeopteryx it is not a forgery but it is a true bird not a transitional species.

www.answersingenesis.org...

and

www.answersingenesis.org...

[edit on 31-8-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
There are a few tantalizing fossils, but as of yet nothing diagnostic. Sooner or later I'm sure a transitional fossil will be found.

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
To reply to the original poster, "monkeys" as you so rudimentally put it, still exist because they can. They have the natural abilities (intelligence, physical traits) to survive in their environment. They are still able to function within their ecological niche. However, if you look at the recent (within the past million years) natural history, we see at least 5 distinct "monkeys" die off completely, including Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilus, and Cro Magnon. These creatures were fundamentally apes, yet we can see undeniable physical, genetic, and in some cases, cultural, connections between these species and ourselves. We descended from these less advanced life forms, and they died out because the next evolutionary step was more able to utilize their advantages and control their ecological niche. They created competition for food/resources, whatnot, that caused their predecessors to die off. Now, personally, I'm not living in the jungle, climbing trees, using my prehensile tail swing around, and I'm certainly not eating termites, ala chimpanzees, "monkeys" and lowland gorillas, our distant relatives. Aside from human technological expansion, we do not occupy the same niche as these creatures. However, if you wait a few years, we'll eventually kill them all because of industry, pollution, and over population. But that is why "monkeys" are still here.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
To blackjackal, I would like you to post a few links purporting "scientific" evidence that do not begin with www.answeringenesis... Objectivity is a beautiful thing



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
jumpspace, you prove that a long post is not necessarily well written or documented. I believe that you are an idiot that cannot read. You being an idiot is my opinion, and therefore cannot be proven. Your inability to read, however, is fact. First, your reference to the "Specific reasons why many scientists disbelieve in creation science and a literal interpretation of Genesis" says NOTHING about a "super species", but instead, says "common ancestor". Its examples concerning the relative stratigraphicl layers containing fossils is simplified to the point of complete falacy. It fails to incorporate the processes of tectonic shift, soil recombination (due to worms, tree roots, rain, or other processes) as well as previous human interaction with lower soils. Your supporting reference point does not actually support the previous reference. It says that neanderthals show no close relationship to humans. Neanderthals were probably an evolutionary branch from Homo Erectus or Homo Ergaster that was beaten by modern humans for resources. However, it does not say there was "no resemblance" to modern humans, but no close relationship. That is a relative statement. Close means that neanderthals and humans were not genetically compatible. It doesn't mean they weren't related through a common ancestor. I am an anthropology/archaeology major, and I have to agree with you on one point you made. We will never find a "super species"... BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR ONE! We HAVE evidence of the ENTIRE human evolution chain, from Australopithecus Afarensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. We have skeletons, tools, refuse, and in many cases, mitochondrial DNA evidence that completely supports the evolution theory. www.onelife.com... Mmmmm, good reading...

Then, you go so far as to reference the NY Times. It AGAIN backs me by saying that modern man did not evolve from Neanderthalensis, but he was related. Can't you get it through your skull that we're not stuck on neanderthals. Their not being our grand-daddies does not blow the theory of evolution out of the water. It merely promotes the idea of evolution and natural selection. Homo Erectus split into Homo Sapiens Cro Magnon and Neanderthalensis, two separate species. Cro Magnon won the battle for supremacy and Neanderthalensis diead out. Where in that idea do I claim a "super species", or that we came from neanderthals? I don't, so stop inventing your own conspiracies.
I want you to explain these "discrepencies" between your references and your implications.

[edit on 1-9-2004 by bdu_fenris]

[edit on 1-9-2004 by bdu_fenris]

[edit on 2-9-2004 by bdu_fenris]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
actually, males became taller during world war I, in Europe that is. American males were always taller because of our diets, and the fact that the average American male back during world war one was around 5'11" while the average European male was around 5'4". Or atleast so i was taught in school, maybe my proffesor was just a moron.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
weird i would have thought a shorter male would have a better chance of surviving trench life.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bdu_fenris
To blackjackal, I would like you to post a few links purporting "scientific" evidence that do not begin with www.answeringenesis... Objectivity is a beautiful thing


Ask and you shall receive.

Archaeopteryx:

www.rae.org...



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Ask and you shall receive.

Archaeopteryx:

www.rae.org...


TalkOrigins: Archaeopteryx FAQs.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   

You are correct I misread Gazrok's Post. As for Archaeopteryx it is not a forgery but it is a true bird not a transitional species.


Semantics really...

So, what about our fingernails and toenails? Still waiting on that one....


C'mon, you don't have to be a scientist to see that they were clearly claws at one time...
How about the way that our toes are growing together because of our habit of wearing shoes... Heck, most people's little toe barely exists... In a thousand years or so, it'll likely be gone entirely...



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Thank you jackal, well supported.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join