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.

 

The nail in the Evolutionary Coffin, the final spike placed there by the Royal Society itself.

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 
"The Earth is a farm,we are someone else's property"...Charles Fort,1874-1932

"Even if you are a minority of one,the truth is still the truth"...Mahatma Gandhi,1869-1948

"There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world and the worst of it is half of them are true"...Sir Winston Churchill,1874-1965




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


"modern humans" arose out of africa, but the even earlier cromagnons and neanderthals originated somewhere else like europe

All humans of any kind whatsoever either originated in Africa or are descended from earlier species that originated there. This includes Neanderthals. Human beings have always been wanderers.

By the time Neanderthals interbred with anatomically modern humans, both races had been in existence for at least 100,000 years. Not all modern humans have Neanderthal genes. Anyway, don't forget that both modern humans and Neanderthals had a common ancestor.

Cro-Magnons were actually an early version of modern human, not the product of 'interbreeding' with another sub-species as far as we know.


neanderthal genes represent 6% of the human genome and so did the neanderthals and cromagnons migrate into africa because of the freezing ice age temperatures further north?

Zero to four percent, actually. However, the genetic data make it quite clear that the origins of humanity are African. The only argument is about how early the first modern humans left Africa; the interbreeding with Neanderthals seems to have taken place in Europe – or, as you say, the Near East, though few Neanderthal remains have actually been found there.


(Did they) then mate with pre-human ape or monkey people, for lack of a better word, which resulted in modern humans?

No. There were no pre-humans left in Africa (or anywhere else, as far as we know) by the time modern humans and Neanderthals interbred. Modern Africans show no sign of interbreeding with Neanderthals.


edit on 5/3/12 by Astyanax because: of geography.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 
I'm not trying to argue this point but this first link says...

Genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with anatomically modern humans between roughly 80,000 and 50,000 years ago in the Middle East,resulting in 1–4% of the genome of people from Eurasia having been contributed by Neanderthals > en.wikipedia.org...

And this second link says...

Evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids,such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans > en.wikipedia.org...


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



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Arg 1)

Are YOU a genetics expert and did dogs write facial recognition software no MAN wrote it so thats why it works with OUR faces.


Arg 2)

YOU should provide the links for YOUR argument.

Arg 3) BS here is some text re that


Human footprints found in Mexico could challenge the current consensus about how and when humans first arrived in the Americas. The team from Bournemouth and Liverpool John Moores Universities that discovered the footprints believes that they are 40,000 years old, which would be some 28,500 years older than previous human finds from this region.


pic of a print


Link to above royalsociety.org...

As for any other theories YOU may have re evolution I suuggest you watch videos by potholer54 on youtube!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


I'm not arguing humans faces definitely vary from face to face, but animals do have distinguishable features just like humans, that would allow you tell the difference. Get a herd of humans and they kind of look the same, but get two animals (or two humans) side by side and the differences are really evident. And humans still use things like hair color to recognize other humans, anyways.

What I'm mostly trying to get at here is that I just don't see how the first argument conclusively proves the OP's point.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


I'm not trying to argue this point but this first link says...

I think you'll find that your link and my posts are in agreement, if you read them carefully.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I also have started to think that, if not just an experiment, our development has been aided by a non-human species. In my opinion the evidence is right in front of us: the pyramids.

And this may not be a scientific reply, but I believe the Starchild skull holds some secrets yet to be discovered. Look it up if you aren't aware of it! The current researcher doesn't often provide lab reports or secondary opinions but I'm not ready to dismiss him as a complete liar just yet.

Cheers,
Ben.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Evolution is a fact, not a theory. The fact that humans of any race can look different and have different features is a testament to this. It's a testament to the ever changing genome, thus we are on top of the food chain and squids are not.


I will give you that this earth has an amazing amount of different life all of which are most astounding. But I will not give you that it was all created by a single omnipotent being out to have fun.

Watch the embedded video. I'm sure it will help you understand how stupid of a "Designer" we really have.




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7
This thread is not spam.


Yes, you're right about that one thing, this thread isn't spam, spam at least has a nutritional value, this thread however....



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
The real question is why are some people so threatened by evolution?

I think the answer is that it undermines their self serving belief system that the world was "created" just for us to destroy and exploit.

That and they are afraid they'll be left behind if the human race evolves (culturally I mean).



Don't quite follow, I'm pretty sure non believers are just as likely to destroy and exploit the world (probably moreso as they do not have defined moral guidelines in the same way believers do)- check atheist USSR and the ecological disasters which it created



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 

Man, my first post had to be on an anti-evolution thread... Haha. Stereologist seemed to provide all the proof I would need to prove the arguments wrong, but you seem to just keep avoiding it...
I'll bite though.

Argument #1 is just based on ignorance. How many animal researchers do you think would agree with the fact that all animals of a single species have the exact same facial features? How do you suppose that they would even be able to tell each animal they are researching (be it a gorilla, lion, groundhog, etc...) apart from the others in a group if there were no facial differences? Sure there are sometimes color differences, but not always. This video kinda shows that (skip to around 10 min in if you don't want to watch the whole thing):

Also. not all people are completely unique. Do an image search (on Google or something) for Francois Brunelle. He's a photographer who has been doing work with non-twin human "doubles".
I'm no expert in this field so this last point on the issue is my opinion, but I'm pretty sure the human variation has a TON to do with sexual selection. Think about it. Nearly every human on earth has the ability to reproduce with another human - we have sort of stalled evolution. In humans, both sexes are selective when choosing a mate (this is why people talk about dating someone "out of their league"), whereas in animals the females can just block undesirable males from ever mating allowing a few fit males to have many children with many females, thus reducing the diversity.

Argument 2 has no scientific evidence to support it, but as far as I can tell they are no different than traditional binding practices... It would be revolutionary and amazing if they were "alien-human hybrids", but the fact that a human can't produce offspring with something as genetically similar as a chimpanzee (whether you believe in evolution or not, we can still measure the differences in our DNA), makes the probability of this extremely low. Sure, you could say that we didn't breed, but rather had our genetics altered by an alien race, but why did they change us from having elongated skulls to normal skulls then?

Argument #3 was pretty much thoroughly proven to be incorrect by stereologist's links on page 4, but you haven't even tried to talk about those claims...

As a final note, if you believe that we were created in an alien's image, then why on earth are there so many unique "images" of humans like you claim? Wouldn't they make us in one image, rather than a billion? I don't know if you are a believer of Sitchin (you seem to say you are to a certain extent) but doesn't he say we were made as slaves? Wouldn't unique faces be undesirable/unnecessary for a bunch of creatures created only for slave labor? Also, since you appear to be a fan of the bible, have you ever heard of Dr. Heiser? He's a little arrogant, but he has made some pretty clear arguments (along with many others) against Sitchin's work on his website. I dunno, just some questions that I had...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
In 1975 a paper was released that led to the myth that Chimp and Human share a 98 to 99% similarity. This was just a tiny fraction of the genomes. Bias resulted in the 99% myth.

In 2002 about 1 million base pairs were compared, still a small fraction and revelead a 95% similarity in those sequences. A substantial difference to the original myth.

In 2003 another study compared 1.9 million base pairs and found only an 87% similarity. A huge difference.

In 2005 the complete draft sequence of the chimpanzee genome was published, the findings depend on how it is compared. With or without bias.

Only 2.4 million of the base pairs line up ALMOST perfectly. This is only 75% similarity.With about 3% difference within these 2.4 million that line up.

Meaning without the bias, Human chimp genetic similarity is in the range of 72%.

The main reason was the discarding of the so called junk dna in the comparisons. And comparing only sections of DNA without considering their placement and order in the longer stretches of the genome. Matching sections with programmes like blast etc.. gives a high percentage depnding on the parameters. Darwinist said junk DNA was non functional, left over stuff from the process of mutation and natural selection. This is turning out to be false.
Bias resulted in the 98%myth, which I'm sure many still beleive is true. Why is that do you think?

Several geneticist have looked at this data and some even think that it will eventually drop even lower than 72% to around 70%. This is when we overlay the entire sequences and not just bits and peices.

We are actually pretty close genetically to bananas as well (60%), perhaps we are descended from intelligent banannas?


There is much better reasons to ask questions than the facial features thing. And this is but one although a significant one.
edit on 5-3-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Was it considered that all breeds of dogs have wolf ancestry? They sure look different.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Was it considered that all breeds of dogs have wolf ancestry? They sure look different.


How about chickens?


A research team at Linköping University in Sweden has established that the changes are heritable, although they do not affect the DNA structure.

Humans kept Red Junglefowl as livestock about 8000 years ago. Evolutionarily speaking, the sudden emergence of an enormous variety of domestic fowl of different colours, shapes and sizes has occurred in record time. The traditional Darwinian explanation is that over thousands of years, people have bred properties that have arisen through random, spontaneous mutations in the chickens’ genes.

The results suggest that domestication has led to epigenetic changes. For more than 70 % of the genes, domesticated chickens retained a higher degree of methylation. Since methylation is a much faster process than random mutations, and may occur as a result of stress and other experiences, this may explain how variation within a species can increase so dramatically in just a short time.


What does that mean?


Nätt and Jensen's research may lead to a review of the important foundations for the theory of evolution.


www.alphagalileo.org...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Bare feet in 'fresh' lava, was the lava hot? so no one would walk on it, or was it cold? so its too hard for an imprint?
that is simple enough.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Thank you for your opinions but you shouldn't get angry when people post opinions such as yourself because there were no facts in the OP.




Evolution theory and the Out of Africa hypothesis have been disproved. If you want my personal opinion, I think we are down to aliens did it. Maybe someday I will give you my theory. But first, I would love to hear you defend the dead beetle of Evolutionary theory. The theory that was.


Why because the Royal Society has a footprint that dates 1.3 million years old? This was supposed to be the smoking gun? Are you even aware how old Lucy was? Her remains are 3 million years old. That, if you do the math correctly is older than your Royal Society's footprint. Terrifying how you guys are trying to get out of Africa huh? Don't get mad because you aren't the only one. Jewish people are doing it to with a 400,000 year old tooth! Link here.
Well wait, there is a 4 million year old one and guess what? She came from the same area as Lucy. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Ardi:



The Ardipithecus ramidus fossils were discovered in Ethiopia's harsh Afar desert at a site called Aramis in the Middle Awash region, just 46 miles (74 kilometers) from where Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, was found in 1974. Radiometric dating of two layers of volcanic ash that tightly sandwiched the fossil deposits revealed that Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago.

Link here:
And I'm still trying to find the thesis of a female archeologist who found remains in America dating almost 7 million years and now she can get footing now that they have acknowledged that Lucy has a great great great grandma. lol

Now your wonderful spill on humans and face: I'm still trying to find the show I watched on forensics in February where a forensics identification specialist was doing clay modification on a skull to see if an identification could be made and this woman said that all human faces are constructed exactly the same with skull variations due to the three distinct races N/M/C, and the only thing that makes them unique is emotional experiences. I'll keep digging but haven't found it yet. I think it was on the ID network.

As for the elongated skulls, I'm still on the fence on that one. Got any actual studies or papers done on the DNA results proving that some of these skulls aren't human in origin? I would love to read them. I like scientific journals.

People have tried with little success to prove that blacks are dumb and whites superior with rewriting history which is being dismantled by the fossil record. You'll never succeed. Truth always comes to light. My solution: Find a new hobby. LOL

And here's your Bible quote. Today's lesson:
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Learning origins is not against any cannon, just the establishment! Go study and show yourself approved.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

The figure is 96%. Here's a trustworthy reference, published in 2011.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

The implied changes, if any, would be a reassessment of the relative contributions of genetic and other mechanisms of heritability. They would not call into question the principle of evolution by selection.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


Bare feet in 'fresh' lava, was the lava hot? so no one would walk on it, or was it cold? so its too hard for an imprint?

Footprints in fresh lava? Goldarn it, Myrtle, them evilution scientists gotta be dumber than turnips...

It was volcanic ash, actually.


edit on 5/3/12 by Astyanax because: I was lava lamped.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


And I'm still trying to find the thesis of a female archeologist who found remains in America dating almost 7 million years and now she can get footing now that they have acknowledged that Lucy has a great great great grandma.

You won't find it, I'm afraid. Seven million years ago was about the time the common ancestor of all hominids (except orangutans) split off from the rest of the primate line of descent. Five million years was about the time of the common ancestor of humans and chimps.

Lucy, who lived 3.2 million years ago, was a member of the species Australopithecus afarensis – ancestral to us, we believe, but certainly not human. Lucy was an ape, which is what the pithecus part of her name means in Latin. Ardi, whose name is derived from his species, Ardipithecus, is another, even older anestral ape. And all these apes lived in East Africa. A 7-million-year-old human fossil from the Americas is an impossibility according to the current narrative of human evolution, which is – as I'm sure you will agree – extremely well supported by the facts we have.

The oldest true human species was probably Homo erectus or one of its immediate ancestors/contemporaries such as habilis. Erectus had fire and both species had stone tools; erectus probably had language too. This puts the beginnings of humanity at about 2-1.5 million years ago. Of course, our own species, Homo Sapiens, is of far more recent origin – it is only about 200,000 years old (estimates vary between 150,000 and 400,000 years, depending on whom you ask).


edit on 5/3/12 by Astyanax because: it was all so long ago.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join