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 FormerSkeptic
Originally posted by HairlessApe
There is no unbelievable 450 year growth in all of humanity's brain size.
Prove it.
Since I have absolutely no idea what type of gibberish reasoning you're trying to pull with such meaningless words that refer to who knows what, I'm at a loss. There. I've proven it.
Originally posted by HairlessApe
I'm entirely willing to support the idea of an ET intervention in mankind's evolution in the face of evidence supporting it. Unfortunately there is no evidence.
I asked you to provide something in the way of proof, and instead you called me a idiot.
I tried to explain to you how a scientifically accepted process explains something that occured naturally, and I'm "closed-minded" for not taking your word that it was ET with again, zero evidence.
You sir, are the closed-minded one.
Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
Originally posted by HairlessApe
I'm entirely willing to support the idea of an ET intervention in mankind's evolution in the face of evidence supporting it. Unfortunately there is no evidence.
I asked you to provide something in the way of proof, and instead you called me a idiot.
I tried to explain to you how a scientifically accepted process explains something that occured naturally, and I'm "closed-minded" for not taking your word that it was ET with again, zero evidence.
You sir, are the closed-minded one.
Those who incessantly and stubbornly cry for proof while defending mere theories as if they're God-given mandates are the real closed minded ones. I cannot imagine a more pathetic example of irony and hypocrisy.
Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by FormerSkeptic
I only talk in meaningless one liners or overly long factual posts.
The one liners are always open to "please elaborate" if you want more information, which will come in the form of one of the aforementioned too long posts.
What my technical post tried to explain was that your initial sources cannot be correct. If you don't want to understand the facts, continue to ignore my post and believe whatever you want, but you're wrong.
The reason pseudoscience like this is allowed to propagate is because of people like you - you deem the science behind the debunking as "too hard to follow" even though it's part of what you can learn at the age of 16.
If it genuinely is too hard for you to understand, not just that you're lazy, then that's fine. It doesn't matter.
What does matter is that you blindly follow people like Crabtree despite not understanding the mechanics behind his work - you take his conclusions as gospel when you could easily dismiss them if you took the time to study the most entry level genetics.
A special tl;dr for you:
- if you don't understand the science, don't post about it
Thank you. So now I know that you are a snotty, arrogant, stubborn fool who cannot engage in thoughtful discussion with those who hold contrasting views. I'm sorry to have offended anybody, but the truth must be stated.
I will refrain from acknowledging you from now on. It's not worth my time.
Originally posted by HairlessApe
Look up colloquial theory, then look up scientific theory. They aren't the same.
The laws of science create scientific theory.
An example of this is Newton's laws constituting the theory of gravity. Yes, gravity is a theory.
And why SHOULD I give your idea any creedence whatsoever without evidence?edit on 28-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by yorkshirelad
reply to post by FormerSkeptic
No he isn't. He answered clealry but did comment that you are ignoring facts presented here that conflict with your established beliefs.
I will refrain from acknowledging you from now on. It's not worth my time.
Aha, there you go. You can't answer him logically and have no wish to acknowledge the points he made so you ignore him........welcome to the world of the ignorant.
Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by FormerSkeptic
But how gradual is gradual?
There is considerable evidence that humans developed a tolerance to lactose (in general) thanks to the domestication of milk producing animals only 5 - 9K years ago. That's lightning fast on an evolutionary scale. There is also the Tibetan adaptation to high altitudes, which is thought to have occurred over the last 3K years.
IF human brains stopped "evolving" 30K years ago, than perhaps it is because there was no need to evolve further until the industrial revolution, about 200 years ago. But that's not even the biggest change. I can theorize that the most recent impetus to human-brain evolution occurred only 25 years ago -- with the rise of a "public Internet." In other words, we don't know how fast human beings actually evolve or adapt to external stimuli, because we are in the nascent stages of what is arguably the greatest augmentation-to-human-intelligence in tens of thousands of years: the ability to "know" novel things in (near) real-time.
Originally posted by Avgudar
Who said evolution was about developing more brain power? Just like all other creationists you've got it all wrong. Furthermore, our livestyles/unhealthy environment might be the cause of this down-spiral.
...there is in fact a current theory...
Originally posted by FormerSkeptic
In appreciation of the more open minded readers here, I'll go out on a limb again, if only in summary.
In the bigger scheme of things, there's actually no scientific proof that the naturally superior creature on Earth has to be an upright, bi-pedal, big-brained, mostly hairless, relatively weak-boned, soft-skinned mammal. The form factor alone is not universal by any parameter of physics or biology.
On the other hand, there's growing evidence that humans are ill-suited to live on Earth.
There's countless incurable cancers. You put a completely nude random person today in a wild jungle, and his chances for survival beyond a few weeks is slim to none. Human physiology simply did not evolve for survival on Earth. Plain truth.
You have to claim that all the power is in the brain. But is that a natural truth? Humans breed like a virus yet kill each other in greed. Where's the natural benefit of the huge brain? Survival how?
Then in view of the finer complexities of all life forms on the planet, absolutely everything else has evolved in response to an environmental need or purpose. Life on Earth simply unfolded. Witness true evolution. Yet there's absolutely no need or purpose to develop an abstract-thinking brain that only destroys the same environment that created it! How is that evolution? It's more like an invasion!
We can debate the details and theories such as the circumstances surrounding the relatively odd, relatively sudden development of the primate line, but in the bigger picture, extraterrestrial seeding is virtually self-evident.edit on 28-12-2012 by FormerSkeptic because: typo's
Some of us humans may call it a happy accident while others insist we're naturally defined as the center of the entire universe. What arrogance.
...in the bigger picture, extraterrestrial seeding is virtually self-evident.
mutation does not favour anything, mutation is random you could say the statistically likely outcomes of mutation blah blah, but please don't use the word favour.