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 Lostmymarbles
lol you used Wiki as a source? ... lol.
Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
Though most of what is on that wiki source is correct it still does not provide a link as to why there is a difference nor has any human skeletal remains been found that would show the fusion process of the last pair of chromosomes.
Originally posted by alfa1
Oh. I was kinda hoping that you would have followed up your argument with data, or observations, or evidence... or something. But I suppose an ad hominem attack will have to do for now.
Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
aka the "missing link".
they have no concrete proof such as showing the "missing link"
evidence of a "missing link"
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by pyramid head
Originally posted by alfa1
ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2
Love when people use wiki as a source. Do actually know what the study says, or the reasons?
Yeah, I do actually, since I aced my studies in genetics at University.
And your follow on argument about sequencing is a bit pointless. The chromosomal fusion was known well before anything was ever sequenced... because you can SEE IT under a microscope.
I, like anybody who has spent any time studying genetics, has spent some time looking through a microscope at chromosomes. They're different sizes, shapes, stains show different bands and a bit of practise lets you identify them individually.
When you take one and cut it in half, or take two and join them end to end, you can SEE FOR YOURSELF the end result.
Here is a simplified picture...
Note that this isnt the only chromosomal fusion event that the world knows of. Its actually a rather basic bit of genetic variation that you'll learn in first year.
Originally posted by Hopechest
Ed Conrad has pretty much been thoroughly debunked on his claim of the skull and bone fragments by every major anthropological outlet in the nation.
Its because of his collection methods which cannot be verified, and other reasons but here is a site that pretty much takes apart his claims piece by piece.
www.geo.ucalgary.ca...
He also claims he has proof that there is life after death because he met a guy who spoke to God and believes him. Certainly not the most logical of people out there.
The importance of this can not be overemphasized -- fossil human bone without unambiguous, detailed, irrefutable documentation of the collection point of the same specimen (not just any specimen) is an absolute requirement. Without this, the isolated specimens are worthless for demonstrating the case even if they are fossil human bone.
Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
reply to post by stillwind
We have found other humanoid skeletons that due show a linkage between humanoids, but what we have not found is a link between humans and apes, which is constantly said to exist and drilled into our heads that we evolved from apes. Yet humans have 2 less chromosomes than apes. We have 23 pairs and apes have 24 and there have been no skeletal remains that can explain this giant gap of evolution other then "we told you so, so listen to us".
This is no small thing we're talking about but an insanely huge gap. The oldest humanoid skeleton "supposedly" found dates 6 million years yet it does not provide a link between man and apes. In fact is only makes things more confusing because it leaves open the question, "what could we have evolved from?" and only raises more questions then answers.edit on 28-2-2013 by Lostmymarbles because: grammer
Originally posted by pyramid head
Saying that the argument I proposed about sequencing is pointless and following it with no argument means you actually didnt understand the argument.
Originally posted by pyramid head
You did not take genetics either stop lying. No undergrad genetics class uses a microscope.
Originally posted by ManFromEurope
My thoughts:
If there were good proof that mankind was much older than thought before, this theory might form a movement inside the science community. Science works that way.
But you have to have better proof than anything taught before. And that will be a problem. About as difficult as saying "the moon is made of cheese" - you could say that. But without a resonable proof, which is based not only on one piece of cheese you claim coming from the moon, but on several others, which must be found by different persons on different occasions, that claim will be worth nothing.
Science works with theories and sometimes even proofs. Prooving something is great. Usually, the timeline of our planet is a little sketchy, larger periods (hey, 100 years seem plenty? What about 10.000 years? And what if that was 2.000.000 years ago?) are simply unknown because not many findings of tha era besides some hints in geological formations.
But, there is a timeline. Many, many time-points on it are proven, not only by a single bone or a single trace, but by many of them.
Anything proven by just 1 thing is less worth than if there is an opposite side which is proven by thousands of things. Logic? Yes, logic.
Originally posted by Telos
Originally posted by wmd_2008
In bold above you cant even get the basics right, HUMANS did not come or evolve from apes what is actually said is that HUMANS and Apes evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR that's why human and ape DNA are almost but not quite the same.
Thanks for insulting me (for the part in bold). It's the new modus operandi now in ATS. When we don't get something we start insulting others even though by doing that we plainly show how ignorant and dumb we are in not understanding squat. Anyway allow me to explain that it was just an example. I could have said Earth is flat, or Moon is made of cheese. Meaning it was just a figure of speech, something to illustrate my comment and make my point more understandable. I can tell you had hard time to get that so next time feel free to ask. I can offer an explanation for free.
Originally posted by Telos
As long as the policy is not to disrupt the paradigm, the official story is: Humans came from apes. Humans are 2-3 million of years old...
Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
But the idea that humans evolved from apes can only go so far, seeing how explanations have provided no evidence to support it as fact.
Seriously were do you guys get the idea that it says anywhere that Humans evolved from apes.
Apes , Monkeys and Humans evolved from a common ancestor NO claim has ever been made we evolved from apes/monkeys is reading comprehension really that bad.
The ONLY place you ever see or hear the quote humans evolved from apes is on creationist web sites and videos.