100 Million Years Old Giant Skull And Teeth Found Embedded In Coal

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
lol you used Wiki as a source? ... lol.


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
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.


So... you've pretty much just repeated your assertion, not addressing any of the points that I'd made in my reply.




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I did provide links in my post and those links show that no humanoid skeletal remains have been found that could provide answers or clues as to why there is such a gap and why there is such a difference in chromosomes, aka the "missing link". Which has been searched for but never found, yet we have been told to accept that there is one without any verifiable proof of it's existence other then hearsay. What you showed was a theory of what could or has happened but no solid prove as in skeletal remains that would support this.

And yet you have yet to say why you believed I was a Creationist. Was it because I pointed a flaw in the system of "we told you so, so listen to us" that is constantly pushed upon us by those who supposedly are "experts"?

I never doubted or questioned your findings or statements, just merely pointing out that there has yet to be something found that could offer an explanation for this evolutionary gap between humans and apes.

As a practitioner of science, you would know that science is constantly evolving and previous ideas of what can and cannot be are constantly being revised and revisited upon as new discoveries (and old discoveries that were overlooked or dismissed) come to light that challenge the old system of beliefs. Thus leaving open the possibilities of the impossible. See my previous post where science had to rethink what it considered the "elements" needed in order for life to be present in an environment.

Furthermore you gave no argument or point in your reply post but instead just copied and pasted 2 excerpts from your source, giving no explanation for your stance and just wanting to see what my counter might be. As you can see I did not abandon it but pointed out the flaw of your excerpts that they have no concrete proof such as showing the "missing link" and at what point in the human evolutionary chart that the merger of the chromosomes began.

I to have studied genetics, bio-chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, and human anatomy in college. I have given links and asked questions that be can viewed from both sides of the fence. So where do you get that I i provided no such:


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.



It seems you are the one who has lacked in this category and given no farther explanation other then you studied genetics in college and how fusion of the chromosome is in itself evidence of a "missing link".
edit on 28-2-2013 by Lostmymarbles because: grammar



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
aka the "missing link".
they have no concrete proof such as showing the "missing link"
evidence of a "missing link"



A few thousand years ago, thought of by the ancient Greeks, there was this idea of "The Great Chain of Being".

Everything in the universe was ordered in a straight line, with God and angels at one end and progressing downward through humans to animals to plants and then rocks. And everything could be placed as a link in this chain if only we could figure out the correct order.
The thought was that there was a "link" in this chain between humans and animals that we didnt know about, probably something ape-like.

But that was a long time ago.

Its hard for me to have a discussion about the genetics of evolutionary biology with someone who keeps referring to the "missing link". You have hundreds of years of catching up to do.

Edit - yes its kind of an ad hominem attack, but its also a way of saying I cant answer your question about "the missing link" because its so wrong that the question itself is even wrong. Much like asking Stephen Hawking about how big the holes in the firmament need to be to let the stars light shine through.


edit on 28-2-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
This is correct, I have also heard of a rumour that the smithsonian institute hired an ocean going barge to dispose of variouse object's in deep water though I don't know how reliable that site was but I also believe the human race to be far older and also to have achieved a staggering;y more advanced civilisation than our current society in the far distant past, remind's me of the ica stone's that argon krypton dating showed to be over 10.000 year's old but after certain american academic's leaned on the us state department they leaned on the peruvian authority's and the illiterate hill farmer who found them admited making them (wonder how he managed the Argon Krypton isotopic shift eh).



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I mentioned "missing link" only in the previous post. Where do you get "keeps referring" from? As though I mentioned it in several posts. If mentioned in one post it is technically referred "once" as the whole post is one reference due to it being a single thought in response to a subject matter. But we can agree to disagree on that.

Your definition and mine on what "missing link" pertains to could be entirely different so you should not assume I think as others do on the subject matter. Because "missing link" has no real definition it is merely a form of expression or another way to say something or a form of example, and could therefore have a different meaning to what you might think it is. Maybe asking what I meant by saying that would be better then assuming I meant something when I said that. Such as the "missing link" of evidence, a chain, a connection, of a thought, etc. For me it means evidence which can connect two parts.

You have a habit of just assuming things or asserting things.

I asked that and made a reference to it as an example (read between the lines) as to the idea that humans evolved from apes could be entirely wrong and that humans might have instead evolved from something else. Something we have no idea about or found yet. 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.

You keep proving my point during your attempts to counter me, even though I have not stated anything as solid belief or fact for which you are trying to counter but have merely been asking questions. All I had been trying to do was show the flaw in the reasoning that evolution outweighs creationism or vice versa because nether one has complete proof to support it. I was asking questions for both if you read my previous posts carefully, leaving to the possibility that both could be correct or both could be completely wrong.

The questions people ask are to vague; ideas and definitions on the matter differ from source to source, leaving to much room for error in either direction.

I was indeed trying to make a point and that point is that what the "experts" say is truth is not always the case. For this reason, we should not dismiss or push aside ideas/thoughts on any subject matter merely because we are told so by "experts" since history has shown that doing so could be costly.
edit on 28-2-2013 by Lostmymarbles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:13 PM
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.



Saying that the argument I proposed about sequencing is pointless and following it with no argument means you actually didnt understand the argument.

In over your head buddy, you didnt understand what I was saying. Its a little too lengthy to explain, you actually learn it your first year in genetics. You did not take genetics either stop lying. No undergrad genetics class uses a microscope. I figured you didnt know what your talking about by the wording and lack of understanding in your argument, and now you confirmed it.
edit on 28-2-2013 by pyramid head because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

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.


I'm curious why you received so many stars for that. You provided a link to a page where 70%+ of its links are broken. Also, you provided no evidence that "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."

Your claim of him being thoroughly "debunked" consists of a conclusion made which says that



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.


Meaning, if they can't find any other specimens which match that particular morphology, then even if the discovery contained human bone, it would be disregarded.

This is not debunking. When you type nonsense like that on the front page of a thread, you need to have better information presented, because most people will be taking the validity of the information based on what the first few people say.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Here are a couple of side by side pictures a modern human skeleton next to an ape, and a human skeleton next to Lucy, I assume we all know who Lucy is.



Notice any similarities between the ape and Lucy? Also notice the position of the shoulders of Lucy. Does it seem like Lucy's shoulders are exaggerated upwards to put her hands in a similar position that a man's would be as to where they fall along the legs? Now I draw your attention to the shape of the rib-cage. What do we notice there? Do the legs look "natural", or do they look like they were "adjusted" to look similar to a human's? The evidence is all around us if we just LOOK!


To add: Any other prehuman skeleton will work the same, try a Neanderthal skeleton!
edit on 28-2-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nighthawk1954
 


Iv'e always thought the human population is slowly shrinking. If we are, then the earth would never be overpopulated. If people were only half the size we are now, the earth would be twice as big.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   

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


This doesn't make things more confusing, at all. It simply shows us that humans and apes divided more than 6 million years ago. In fact this is exactly in line with what geneticists tell us that we should find. According to the genetics, the line that would become human and the line that became ape divided somewhere between 8 and 10 million years ago.

All this information is available for anyone to find, if they actually look at what is being published by scientist whop are actually doing this work. There is no excuse for ignorance people. Take time off reading website posts by other ignorants, and actually do the work.

This is akin to reading people post about the Bible, when they have clearly never read it, or any other topic. Ignorance is curable. Stupid is a choice.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   

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.


Oh I knew what you were saying, but gave the simpler reply to also aid user Lostmymarbles and other readers, and to also show that the basic idea of the chromosome fusion did not arise from sequencing, but from much earlier work.

But if you want to address the corrupted sequences at the fusion site, then yes, I agree the whole thing looks like a car crash. Probably because it is.
But the question you have to answer is... if human chromosome 2 is the result of normal human development and is a "normal" chromosome, then why does it have corrupted remains of a telomere and centromere *at all*?
And how do these happen to be at exactly the place where a common ancestral fusion occurs?

---------------------------------

For non-geneticists, I offer the following image of chromosome 2...
(and for the sake of simplicity, this analogy is front engined cars)



pyramid head's argument is that this is ONE naturally occurring car.
Science's argument is that this is TWO cars fused at a central point.

pyramid head says the whole object hasnt been properly examined (sequenced) at a high resolution, so it is impossible to use the "two car" solution.
His other argument about motor car engines at the fusion point -
- the engines are too short
- the engines are too corrupt
- bits of supposed engines are missing
- there are "many other inconsistencies" about the engines.
- therefore: one car.

My argument is the very fact that there is evidence of two motor car engines at the fusion point *at all* undermines his "one car" argument".
Also, both rear parts of each cars can be easily identified for the models of cars they were before the fusion.





Originally posted by pyramid head
You did not take genetics either stop lying. No undergrad genetics class uses a microscope.


Monash University, check them out, specifically whether they mention "advanced practical skills in experimental methods".
Obviously a better one than the uni you went to.

edit on 1-3-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   

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.


Exactly.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   
The scientific fraternity is turning out to be like the ye olde religeous crowd during the dark ages upto the latter half of the 18th centuries, Anything not known to them is a lie and must be discarded without due process, the " We know whats best for you" malarky revisited.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   

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.


Obviously you didn't remember what you said.


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...


That's your exact words care to show us were that OFFICIAL story is stated, the only time I ever see the claim man is descended from apes is from creationists or bible thumpers


If you cant take or except criticism maybe you shouldn't make claims without checking them first or use a paragraph of conspiracy cliches that show you are clutching at straws or grow a thicker skin before posting on an internet forum



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

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.

Simple illustration of what it means



The branches divide now can you understand from above although were are related as seen by DNA due to having common ancestors we did not evolve from apes!!!!
edit on 1-3-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


correctamundo....the smithsonian is nortorious for hiding the giants.....I live right next to ROCKWALL texas......home of the 3 mile by 5 mile rectangle wall buried with windows and pipe and a wheel, even....in the wall.....and a giant skull was found and swept....



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
1000 million years old, thats old. does that predate the dinosaurs?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



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.


Actually... I have been asking you for evidence from the fossil record since I joined the thread and I have yet to be provided with anything remotely resembling that.

You keep posting some propaganda accompanied with a passionate plea.
You are right about one thing.
That picture is very simple, but it contains not one shred of evidence.

You are the one making an assertion. I am not. Therefore, you are responsible for providing evidence to support your preposterous claim.
And you haven't.

From the fossil record mate.

From the fossil record.

Btw... I know what evidence supposedly exists in the fossil record. I just want to see if you have the chops to debate me on it, or if you can even put it forth as persuasive.
Because it's not. At all. Not even close.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


First of all I ain't your mate!!!!

Trasitional Hominids

More Transitional Fossils



Like is said google is your friend.

ONLY CREATIONISTS CLAIM MAN DESCENDED FROM APES!!!! we are related TO not descended from maybe that will sink in now
edit on 1-3-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
40
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join