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.

 

More evidence that evolution in humans did indeed take place.

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 1116539997



But going off the dumb asses of today, I'd say we have de-evolved. We can build things etc, but when it comes to the majority of people, they are no smarter than a common ancient caveman. Just go down to your local pub for factual evidence. [



I agree so much with you friend. Here is the proof:




edit on 9-12-2011 by samsamm9 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2011 by samsamm9 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 

The theory of Evolution was not the idea that things adapted, it was that species evolved into new species. ancient man was still man. That is why it is still called the THEORY of evolution. It has never been proven. Even Darwin admitted before he died that he made a mistake. While the finches adapted to their new environment by the change in the bill, they remained finches. They didn't evolve from birds to another species..



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by honestyblaze
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 

The theory of Evolution was not the idea that things adapted, it was that species evolved into new species. ancient man was still man. That is why it is still called the THEORY of evolution. It has never been proven. Even Darwin admitted before he died that he made a mistake. While the finches adapted to their new environment by the change in the bill, they remained finches. They didn't evolve from birds to another species..


Everything you just said there is wrong. Things both adapt and evolve and Darwins recant is a myth.

Here. Educate yourself.

ngm.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrimalRed
I don't get why evolution was added in the title


Me neither. I appreciate the information, but this has nothing to do with evolution.

On another note, one of the reasons Neanderthal was originally thought of a stooped over and cave-man like was because one of the first complete skeletons found was a man who had rickits and arthritis.
edit on 12/9/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

edit on 9-12-2011 by 1116539997 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


No, the theory is a fact...The theory is a theory, a careful attempt to explain the end result of observable facts... Meaning that no observable CONCLUSION could be reached. but the reality IS he did not confirm, (& neither did national geographic) that species can EVOLVE from other species as fact. He couldn't. You believe his admission of error is a myth, but his admission of a theory is true, when the facts say the error admission is true, & the THEORY (google that word, it may be fluffed up to make scientists feel better, but it still means an idea, thought or opinion) is fact? The fact of the theory is that it is ALL based on mans best guess. That is the basis of science.. If logic dictates that birds can turn into fish, or mammals into reptiles without direct evidence, then you cannot be using evidence to back up your claim at all.. Genius!! Keep up that line of reasoning... It's perfect...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by honestyblaze
reply to post by steveknows
 


No, the theory is a fact...The theory is a theory, a careful attempt to explain the end result of observable facts... Meaning that no observable CONCLUSION could be reached. but the reality IS he did not confirm, (& neither did national geographic) that species can EVOLVE from other species as fact. He couldn't. You believe his admission of error is a myth, but his admission of a theory is true, when the facts say the error admission is true, & the THEORY (google that word, it may be fluffed up to make scientists feel better, but it still means an idea, thought or opinion) is fact? The fact of the theory is that it is ALL based on mans best guess. That is the basis of science.. If logic dictates that birds can turn into fish, or mammals into reptiles without direct evidence, then you cannot be using evidence to back up your claim at all.. Genius!! Keep up that line of reasoning... It's perfect...


And there it is. The same old lame non ground breaking reponse. What you actually want is a time machine. No I'd me more correct to say that a time machine would be your worst enemy because then you'd be shut up once and for all. EVERYTHING indicates that life has evolved and evolution is both ADAPTION AND CHANGE. And you're wrong yet again. Dinosaurs turned into birds not birds into fish. See if things can't change when it has do it will die out. Like the bible it refuses to change in the face of evidence against what it says and it's dying out.


keep believing the "Good book" to be fact genius and you'll go the way of this fella.


edit on 10-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by honestyblaze
reply to post by steveknows
 


No, the theory is a fact...The theory is a theory, a careful attempt to explain the end result of observable facts... Meaning that no observable CONCLUSION could be reached. but the reality IS he did not confirm, (& neither did national geographic) that species can EVOLVE from other species as fact. He couldn't. You believe his admission of error is a myth, but his admission of a theory is true, when the facts say the error admission is true, & the THEORY (google that word, it may be fluffed up to make scientists feel better, but it still means an idea, thought or opinion) is fact? The fact of the theory is that it is ALL based on mans best guess. That is the basis of science.. If logic dictates that birds can turn into fish, or mammals into reptiles without direct evidence, then you cannot be using evidence to back up your claim at all.. Genius!! Keep up that line of reasoning... It's perfect...


You understand the difference between a layman's theory and scientific theory, correct? Gravity is a theory but we are pretty darn sure it exists. YOU need to google scientific theory and scientific methods so you can understand why evolution is beyond proven. We're just trying to work out the minor details. No credible argument against evolution has EVER been presented. There is TONS of evidnece LOL. Just read some of the top threads in this section. The facts, proof and evidence has all been posted, but alas the creationists ignore it and bring up redundant guesses like the statement above.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
This is a subject that will continue to attract much debate.
There is no answer because we simply do not know enough and can only continue to speculate.
If there was originally a wolf from which all dogs owe there ancestry to then where the hell did all the colours come from and the difference in sizes from St Bernard to Chihuahua breeds that exist today?
With the human race we can determine that we were all black up to about 10,000 years ago (arguably) so where did the white, red and yellow strain come from as well as the different hair and eye colours?
Did we evolve, were we created by a deity or was there some sort of genetic intervention by beings not from this planet?
We have much to learn but continue to discover more about ourselves as science advances day by day.
With regards to the OP there is not enough evidence one way or another as yet to form a conclusion.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


The arguments for and against evolution can go on and on until we have proof one way or another. I came across an interesting story told by an american indian known as Robert Morning Sky called The Terra Papers-Hidden History of Planet Earth. I won't go into details but it is worth reading and puts forward a story of such magnitude that it seems entirely credible. It explains alot but will upset the devout religious as it proposes ideas that seem too far out, but aren't. Keep an open mind when reading this work .This story ,if believed, can niether be proven nor unproven..just like evolution



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzTiger
This is a subject that will continue to attract much debate.
There is no answer because we simply do not know enough and can only continue to speculate.
If there was originally a wolf from which all dogs owe there ancestry to then where the hell did all the colours come from and the difference in sizes from St Bernard to Chihuahua breeds that exist today?
With the human race we can determine that we were all black up to about 10,000 years ago (arguably) so where did the white, red and yellow strain come from as well as the different hair and eye colours?
Did we evolve, were we created by a deity or was there some sort of genetic intervention by beings not from this planet?
We have much to learn but continue to discover more about ourselves as science advances day by day.
With regards to the OP there is not enough evidence one way or another as yet to form a conclusion.


Where did the colors come from? Animals adapt to their environment and if one is born with a slight variation of fur color it will blend in with the environment better and survive better. If it's worse they will probably die. Have you heard of dominant and recessive genes? Couples with black skin can still give birth to a white baby today and vice versa. This is scientific fact. The information is already in their genes. It might be incredibly rare but it happens and shows how the white race came about. They left Africa, and its hot environment and the lighter skin was more conducive to their survival in a colder environment. Darkness in skin is caused by melonin, and Africans are much less susceptible to skin cancer than any other race of human because of this. Another fact that demonstrates evolution in recent times. Also I'm pretty sure it was much longer ago than 10,000 years ago.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
It seems ancient man, were making their homes safer and more comfortable with basic items we still use today. They even used special grasses and stones, to ward off mosquitoes.

The fact that ancient man, thought outside the box, and did not always choose the simplest solution as their first choice, indicates that they reasoned, they thought, they deduced and calculated.

I think that sometimes many people have the wrong perception, of these "ancient man", often having the perception they were merely simple hunter gatherers, where we can see, this is not the case. Actually we are not so different from them today.


Isnt this contradictive to your title? This suggests meaningful evolution has not occured in humanity.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
The article there simply demonstrates that humans are as intelligent as other animals. There is a whole field of study that deals specifically with the plants and other nature products that animals use to keep themselves healthy. Do some research but go ahead and start with this article.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join