It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rocketman7
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Rocketman7
You really think facial recognition is proof against evolution. If anything it is proof for evolution. Facial recognition among humans requires a large portion of the brain. Why do you expect such resources to be wasted on recognizing the faces of other animals when it has impact on human reproduction?
As for the claims regarding software. We have spent decades and millions, if not billions, of dollars trying to create software that can recognize human faces. Even then the software is not perfect. Why do expect facial recognition software designed to recognize faces of other species, a field that is in its extreme infancy, to be as well developed as human facial recognition software?
The question was how does the theory of evolution explain the fact that humans all have distinct different faces when no other animal has that characteristic.
Frank Borman: - "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."
If we are descended from apes, then explain how we ended up with distinct identifiable individual faces, and they did not. And why not.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
Your claim that Darwinism had to be accepted in 1859 is hogwash. His theory of evolution was heartily challenged. Changes were made to address issues where Darwin's theory was incorrect. That is the way science works. There are those that falsely claim there is some sort of toeing the line amongst scientists. That is a fairy tale concocted by those attempting to con the gullible. Science is all about challenging and testing ideas.
Riquelme has claimed that the eye cavities indicate that the skull could not belong to a human as it is far bigger than anything previously seen in regular human skulls.
Anthropologists from across the globe have now been sent to the museum in Peru to investigate the find.
Is this an alien skull? Mystery of giant-headed mummy found in Peru
The strangely shaped head - almost as big as its 50cm (20in) body - has baffled anthropologists.
There is a soft spot in the skull - called an open fontanelle - which is a characteristic of children in their first year of life, yet the skull also has two large molars, only found in much older humans.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by squiz
The figure is 96%. Here's a trustworthy reference, published in 2011.
Originally posted by blueorder
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
The Op has proposed a theory. A theory doesn't always have to include references because it is an opinion/idea. It is our job to prove to prove or disprove his/her theory with what we have learned and back it up with proof. Although I appreciate theories that are backed with proof, we can't always expect this with one's belief.
However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome
2005 Press Release from the US National Human Genome Research Institute
WASHINGTON, Wed., Aug. 31 - The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported today...
The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence.
At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat.
OK. Check this link only if you want the truth.
The truth is revealed in the second photo of someone looking at this skull and body in the museum.
Please do not look if:
1. You want to pretend to be an Annunaki programmer
2. It will make you spout irrelevant biblical quotes
3. You can't handle the fact that science works
4. You would rather stick with lies
5. You think Sitchin could translate ancient languages