Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Human Ancestor Reconstructed, Halfway Between Chimp And Human

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 


Yes, we all migrated from Africa. Modern humans (homo sapien) have only been around for 200,000 years. We actually co-existed for a long time with homo neanderthalensis which had a larger brain, coupled with much more sophisticated eyesight and sense of smell, than us. Technology advances at an exponential rate, not a linear one. While we have always had the same capacity for intelligence, our brains have never been exposed to so much information and stimulation.




posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Point taken, Casino!

But in this case we have much, much more than a tooth! At the very least, this creature is clearly a homonid, clearly not a modern human, and clearly has a form which is rare/new to the fossil record.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
A Chuman is nothing to sneeze at!

Keep in mind we were once fish. I think 'Worth1000' could produce some chopped animals evolutionists would be proud of



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   


Originally posted by DaTroof Wow, all they had to do was completely fabricate a rib cage, half a pelvis, an entire arm... how do we know these bones belong to the same creature?




I guess the fact that it's 2 - 4 million years old doesn't excuse the skeleton of it's poor (actually for it's age, immaculate - pun intended) condition. I guess you'll only accept it as evidence if it's encased in amber or if there's a vague image of a deity burnt into it? How do we know it's all from the same creature...? Peer reviews in Science Journal would be a good start. Edit: Hey, that Chimpanzee skeleton is a mold, too! Maybe Chimpanzees are made up. It's probably all a government plot to make us more complacent so we forget about the bible, man. It's so obvious.
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


That's not fair, Hairless. If ancient bones are preserved in one region of the world, then bones from later on (and earlier) could have been preserved there too. The bones could have been mixed and mismatched. I'm not saying they were put together wrong, I'm saying it's not an unreasonable question.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj


Originally posted by DaTroof Wow, all they had to do was completely fabricate a rib cage, half a pelvis, an entire arm... how do we know these bones belong to the same creature?




I guess the fact that it's 2 - 4 million years old doesn't excuse the skeleton of it's poor (actually for it's age, immaculate - pun intended) condition. I guess you'll only accept it as evidence if it's encased in amber or if there's a vague image of a deity burnt into it? How do we know it's all from the same creature...? Peer reviews in Science Journal would be a good start. Edit: Hey, that Chimpanzee skeleton is a mold, too! Maybe Chimpanzees are made up. It's probably all a government plot to make us more complacent so we forget about the bible, man. It's so obvious.
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


That's not fair, Hairless. If ancient bones are preserved in one region of the world, then bones from later on (and earlier) could have been preserved there too. The bones could have been mixed and mismatched. I'm not saying they were put together wrong, I'm saying it's not an unreasonable question.



While that is true, Jigger, the bones of a creature 2 - 4 million years old are likely to be buried in a separate (and evidently deeper) layer of Earth than a creature which died at a later period. And again, a peer reviewed journal is a good way to identify mistakes such as "bone mixing."

Just think.. We find entire ancient cities buried deep beneath the Earth, and often times these cities are less than 10,000 years old.
edit on 15-4-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Flagged just to point out that when the greys created us, they used sasquatch's not chimps



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hisshadow
Flagged just to point out that when the greys created us, they used sasquatch's not chimps



I'm very confused... How did you come up with this conclusion?



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


Link
It's rare for fossils to show up outside of the rift valley because most of North Africa was covered in rainforests millions of years ago, and the climate did not allow for preservation of bones. With that being said, its assumed a sign of intelligence for A. Bahrelghazali to have been able to migrate and survive away from other Australopithecines.


Awwwweeeessssome link!! Thanks so much. Skimming through it right now and bookmarking it for later.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by gort51
reply to post by DaTroof
 

My thoughts exactly........I'm really starting to wonder if these scientists are starting to lose the plot.


What exactly do you mean by "the plot?"



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
S&F op


I love thinking If they thought like us, could they have reason? or were they just based on instinct?

Wish we could make one



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I'm going to need some more than this too. Too many times "scientists" have been caught molding bones to fit. Sorry no Frankenstein creations allowed. We need a real preserved skeleton from one donor. Not a hodgepodge of parts from multiple skeletons.

For all we know it could have been cave man Michael Jackson buried with his faithful chimp bubbles. Then they decided to put pieces together.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrStyx
Sorry no Frankenstein creations allowed. We need a real preserved skeleton from one donor. Not a hodgepodge of parts from multiple skeletons.

For all we know it could have been cave man Michael Jackson buried with his faithful chimp bubbles. Then they decided to put pieces together.


We would all really love to see an intact homonid creature. Trust me. Unfortunately millions of years tends to degrade a body pretty well. Hell, one year will degrade a body to nothing. We should just be glad that we found this much intact!


Even if mistakes were made when assembling/molding the skeletons of these ancient creatures, the plethora of trained archaeologists and paleontologists who take their jobs very seriously and are constantly looking at these things would eventually notice the mistake, and homonid bones and the bones of other creatures are quite distinctly different pattern, especially to the highly-trained eye.



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Not to poo poo evolution (because I really don't know), but the way they go about reconstructing these things was always suspicious to me. How do you accurately piece bones and bone fragments together from different areas, buried at different times, preserved in different ways?

I liked playing Mr. Potato Head as a kid too, unfortunately it has no place in science.
edit on 15-4-2013 by FollowTheWhiteRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by DaTroof
Wow, all they had to do was completely fabricate a rib cage, half a pelvis, an entire arm...
how do we know these bones belong to the same creature?



I guess the fact that it's 2 - 4 million years old doesn't excuse the skeleton of it's poor (actually for it's age, immaculate - pun intended) condition.


I can hear young earth creationist heads exploding all over the world. I wonder what offal the Discovery Institute will fabricate in response to this find..



posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

I'd love for a plethora of scientist to be in the field of archeology and paleontology, but there isn't. Just like there isn't a bunch of amateur astrologists watching the skies either.
There are a few select guys/gals at the top of their field. What they say goes until the next generation of top guys/gals in their field say different. Sadly humanity isn't really into mathematics and science as much as we should be. We've heard this song before, I want to trust i but I just can't.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Wow, funny how many christians and general "non-scientists" are coming here to attack your post.

First of all thank you for sharing this, it is a very interesting find! It is kinda funny to see the creationists here struggle to retain their world view by discrediting scientific work that they obviously do not fully understand.

A rational human being MUST inevitably come to the conclusion that evolution is real and a FACT. There are mountains of fossils that clearly show transitions between species plus so many other points and FACTS that corroborate that theory.

It does not explain if there is a god, or why the universe existed. This is something that a lot of creationists often confuse.

But it DOES explain how nature itself developed and it is a beautiful and very elegant process that we should admire instead of blindly ignore.

And I know that you religious people strongly believe that you have looked at all the evidence and that it "just" doesn´t convince you.

Well the truth is that you simply can´t allow yourself to accept even the possibility of evolution as that would completely destroy your worldview and with that your ego.

You are not open to rational thought, because that would mean to accept that your bible/quran/whatever is NOT a collection of facts.

I kinda feel sorry for you guys, as you force yourself into a corner that you will inevitably have to leave someday. Even present day and all it´s available information must make it very hard for you to hang on to your myths.

And I applaud OP for defending reason in this discussion.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrStyx
reply to post by HairlessApe
 

IJust like there isn't a bunch of amateur astrologists watching the skies either.


First of all you don´t even know the difference between astronomy and astrology, how are we supposed to take you seriously.

Second of all, please explain the existence of communities like this: www.astronomyforum.net...

Are they all just pretending to look at the skies?

And btw, what kind of twisted and unreal version of what science actually does exists in your head? I have the feeling that religious people think that science is also faith based, that you can either go with that statement or not.

You have to understand that science operates on FACTS. Really dive into the process and look what these amazing people do all over the world. At least make an effort to understand your "enemy".

What you´re doing is propose vague statements that have nothing to with the reality around you.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
It's in The 12th Planet by Sitchin.

one of the hominids they observed was different from the rest, it walked upright, long hair and was smart. It's actually a great read. It also fits in well with ancient humans being much larger than we are today..



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hisshadow
It's in The 12th Planet by Sitchin.

one of the hominids they observed was different from the rest, it walked upright, long hair and was smart. It's actually a great read. It also fits in well with ancient humans being much larger than we are today..


Eh.. Not so sure about Sitchen. Used to love Daniken, until he broke my heart with his lies. I like to think of that as my religious experience, and I'm glad it's over. If you could give me a link to something about this homonid, however, I would love to check it out.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


This what happens when there is an A and B conversation then you come out of nowhwere making links to things I never even stated to begin with. When someone
It usually lacks seriousness.

A. Where did you get that i beleived in creationism. You just jumped to conclusion on your own with no evidence so right away I assume about you that you dont suscribe to critical thinking. Or would that be an ignorant assumption?

B. If you believe in fact where do you get your supporting evidence to state I am a creationist. You dont have any. I said I want more evidence to secure a position beyond reasonable doubt. Not that I believe in creationism. Your typical of todays society., Who cares about your link. It shows you cant see the forest from the trees. Make a map of the earth at any given time. Show the range of todays telescopes. There are only a few of the most powerful that can get a good range. Show any direction that can be viewed and its distance. You'll find only a minute area of the sky can be covered at any given time. Hence why Russia got smacked with a large meteor and not once of these armchair "astronomists" saw it coming. Also why Nasa is sending its data for public to help sort through because they need help to go through all the data.

C. See your way out of the conversation. Molding multiple skeeltons isnt a FACT based science in my book in FACT it has been done before and shown the be fradulent. So sip the kool aid again, press the big red button and get zapped once more. There should be tons of evidence by now for the missing link in evolution. Why are we not finding a lot of them? Heck I'll take one.

D. For your information. I believe in evolution for multiple species of plant and animal life. Do I believe in it in our case, yeah to a point. Then there is a jump. We can try to assume what happened. What caused the "jump" is my concern. It could have been intelligent life for all we know. Just have to wait till those pesky FACTS come in.






top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join