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.

 

Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

page: 17
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Is there an example of a cell growing just a part of a leg that links to nothing? Is there then further evidence of a cell growing another leg...I am not talking about known animals that have biologically screwed up offspring, but something in the record showing a cell with no know animal connection.

Is there a cell growing eyes or a head not connected genetically to a known present day animal, again not a screwed up fertilized egg, but I am looking for something to show evolution from cell to new creature new kind.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



peter vlar
Tahmisian wasn't a biologist in any sense of the word. What are his credentials relating to biology or anthropology? I'll give you a hint... He has none.

FYI, neither was Darwin...

Even if he WAS a biologist, he certainly never "discovered" evolution.

The theory of evolution is FAR older than Darwin, and used to be an ancient pagan occult / hermetic theory based on hermeticism.

Darwin basically plagiarized Anaximander who taught that humans evolved from fish.


"Gotta love how 'evolution theory' is historically demonstrated to be nothing but failed ancient mythology updated & repackaged with scientific lingo hijacked from Christian pioneers of science (Linnaeus, Ray, Mendel, Cuvier,etc), pushed by Freemasonic/Communist control of centralized gov't, universities, press, media & think-tanks backed by the satanic elite with their world Socialist revolution while 'Atheists' still cling to politically corrupt 'science' or point to imaginary 'evidence'." Source

When analyzing the writings of Darwin, it is insightful to keep in mind that he has not been trained as a scientist, but as a clergyman. Darwin, as theology-student-turned-naturalist, writes to make disciples of his scientific “gospel”. Source

Much has been made of the fact that he trained for the ministry and turned his back on it. This is a double-edged sword for evolutionists. He didn’t have a degree in biology, which (in the minds of some evolutionists) automatically disqualifies one from knowing anything about evolution. Since Darwin doesn’t have any academic credentials, his credibility has to come from his experience aboard HMS Beagle. Darwin’s Credentials

Darwin was a theology student. He was not a scientist. He was, however, able to talk his way into opportunities through which he hoped to present himself to others as a naturalist. Darwin allowed his new-formed faith in man, materialism, and process to justify irrationality, shoddy scholarship, and wild speculation.

Once in the field, his lack of training and his inability to draw reasonable conclusions from his observations became apparent. This is why many followers of his theory of evolution must ignore the actual research of Darwin during the voyage of the Beagle and elsewhere, since so much of his work in places like the Galapagos Islands has been discredited.

What I Teach My Children About Charles Darwin

It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.

Darwin Only Had a Theology Degree



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Murgatroid
reply to post by peter vlar
 



peter vlar
Tahmisian wasn't a biologist in any sense of the word. What are his credentials relating to biology or anthropology? I'll give you a hint... He has none.

FYI, neither was Darwin...

Even if he WAS a biologist, he certainly never "discovered" evolution.

The theory of evolution is FAR older than Darwin, and used to be an ancient pagan occult / hermetic theory based on hermeticism.

Darwin basically plagiarized Anaximander who taught that humans evolved from fish.


"Gotta love how 'evolution theory' is historically demonstrated to be nothing but failed ancient mythology updated & repackaged with scientific lingo hijacked from Christian pioneers of science (Linnaeus, Ray, Mendel, Cuvier,etc), pushed by Freemasonic/Communist control of centralized gov't, universities, press, media & think-tanks backed by the satanic elite with their world Socialist revolution while 'Atheists' still cling to politically corrupt 'science' or point to imaginary 'evidence'." Source

When analyzing the writings of Darwin, it is insightful to keep in mind that he has not been trained as a scientist, but as a clergyman. Darwin, as theology-student-turned-naturalist, writes to make disciples of his scientific “gospel”. Source

Much has been made of the fact that he trained for the ministry and turned his back on it. This is a double-edged sword for evolutionists. He didn’t have a degree in biology, which (in the minds of some evolutionists) automatically disqualifies one from knowing anything about evolution. Since Darwin doesn’t have any academic credentials, his credibility has to come from his experience aboard HMS Beagle. Darwin’s Credentials

Darwin was a theology student. He was not a scientist. He was, however, able to talk his way into opportunities through which he hoped to present himself to others as a naturalist. Darwin allowed his new-formed faith in man, materialism, and process to justify irrationality, shoddy scholarship, and wild speculation.

Once in the field, his lack of training and his inability to draw reasonable conclusions from his observations became apparent. This is why many followers of his theory of evolution must ignore the actual research of Darwin during the voyage of the Beagle and elsewhere, since so much of his work in places like the Galapagos Islands has been discredited.

What I Teach My Children About Charles Darwin

It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.

Darwin Only Had a Theology Degree


Nobody has made the claim the Darwin either coined the term evolution or was the originator of the concept. It had been used in embryology for quite a long time and in fact Darwin doesn't even call it evolution in "origin of species". There were many people who attempted to understand creation and evolution prior to Darwin.

I find it ironic that your refutation of Darwin was that he was a theologian. The fact that someone who had a degree in bible thumping yet he postulated evolutionary theory must really ruffle your feathers. However

Anaximander didn't come up with an evolutionary theory, he postulated about how mankind came to be, essentially he was a proto creationist.


Anaximander of Miletus considered that from warmed up water and earth emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves.
So in your mind Darwin was wrong because a Greek philosopher was wrong first? Interesting approach.
Darwin was first introduced to evolutionary concepts from his grandfathers journals and he actually went to medical school so he actually does have a biological background. It was at Edinburgh medical school that he assisted in and learned to classify plants in the universities museum. A slightly different picture than what you would prefer to portray. Your assertion that he had no scientific or biological background is absolutely incorrect.

Learn due diligence. It is your friend. You should always check your source material to see if it holds up to scrutiny.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

edit on 14-9-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
Is there an example of a cell growing just a part of a leg that links to nothing? Is there then further evidence of a cell growing another leg...I am not talking about known animals that have biologically screwed up offspring, but something in the record showing a cell with no know animal connection.

Is there a cell growing eyes or a head not connected genetically to a known present day animal, again not a screwed up fertilized egg, but I am looking for something to show evolution from cell to new creature new kind.


Please explain to me how a single called organism grows a multicellular appendage. This ought to be really interesting.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Why are you asking me? That's basically my question. Show me a simple cell developing into another kind. I don't mean reproducing animals. I mean a normal simple cell showing signs of evolution by chance. There have to be plenty to observe as they have short life cycles.

How long have they been watching bacteria and they are still bacteria. There much be one developing into a fish or something.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 



peter vlar
Tell me how Lucy is not transitional when she has multiple morphological features in common with Chimps that modern humans do not share and many morphological features possessed by modern humans such as the angle of the pelvis, angle of the foremen magnum, the femurs... It is a classic example staring you in the face. It could sit on your lap and you still would deny it.

Lucy was a monkey...

Stamping a skeleton with a "transitional species" label doesn't change the FACT that it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape.

Lucy is just one of MANY clear cut cases of fraud.


The "science" of finding and identifying our “prehistoric ancestors” always seems FAR too predictable:


A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the “ancestor” turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day.

Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link

The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“ But what about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide separation of Lucy’s bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point to a catastrophic scenario – such as a world wide flood?

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities). Source



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity
 

Fair enough. I'm not a molecular biologist so I'm not going to sit here and bark like its my area. However this link should give you an overview of the processes involved. Lets be fair though, we both know a single felled organism doesn't go from having a flagellum to growing arms within 3 generations. It's not how it works and there's nobody that will make that claim. But I digress, here's the link...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Murgatroid
reply to post by peter vlar
 



peter vlar
Tell me how Lucy is not transitional when she has multiple morphological features in common with Chimps that modern humans do not share and many morphological features possessed by modern humans such as the angle of the pelvis, angle of the foremen magnum, the femurs... It is a classic example staring you in the face. It could sit on your lap and you still would deny it.

Lucy was a monkey...

Stamping a skeleton with a "transitional species" label doesn't change the FACT that it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape.

Lucy is just one of MANY clear cut cases of fraud.


The "science" of finding and identifying our “prehistoric ancestors” always seems FAR too predictable:


A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the “ancestor” turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day.

Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link

The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“ But what about Lucy? Just another partial find of some primate, put together to look like a human ancestor? Could the wide separation of Lucy’s bones (200 feet by 1 mile) better point to a catastrophic scenario – such as a world wide flood?

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities). Source


Lucy was a monkey huh? Tell me about her prehensile tail and feet then. Oh wait a couple sentences later she has the head of a modern ape! If Lucy is a hoax, why then are there many Australopithecus afarensis remains that are even more complete and have the same morphological features. Your links focus on the hips and femurs which is fine. People should constantly question popular convention. However it doesn't touch at all upon the angle of the pelvis let alone the angle of the foremen magnum. The FM is a clear indicator of bipedalism as is the pelvic angle so femur or not, it is rather conclusive.

Additionally your links completely misrepresent the facts of nearly every instance they touch upon.
All the evidence we have for human evolution can fit in one coffin? An outright lie. Not that they'll let you in but if you could see just what is in the back rooms of the Smithsonian and that's one building in one city. There are remains in ever major museum and university in the world. There's enough evidence to fill several mass graves.
Neanderthal is not just a regular modern human either as your source material claims. It is a genetically distinct species that predates MH by at least a half million years. If your source material isn't vetted it makes you look silly not me.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   

peter vlar
Additionally your links completely misrepresent the facts of nearly every instance they touch upon. If your source material isn't vetted it makes you look silly not me.

How in the WORLD can you say that my source material makes ME look silly right after posting this link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It NEVER ceases to amaze me when ever someone on a conspiracy forum cites a MSM source such as the above link and expects that they will be taken seriously...

How in the world can people be so gullible that they actually BELIEVE what the mass media propaganda is telling them?

One of the major promoters of evolution (the MSM) are known blatant LIARS.

This should be a massive red flag to anyone with even a LITTLE bit of sense.

It's been shown countless times on ATS that the MSM is the most powerful tool used by the elite to manipulate the masses and yet people STILL listen to everything they say.

I see only ONE reason why so many people appear to be completely blind to the fact that everything in the mainstream apparatus is agenda driven:


"The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe." ~ 2 Corinthians 4:4



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Murgatroid

peter vlar
Additionally your links completely misrepresent the facts of nearly every instance they touch upon. If your source material isn't vetted it makes you look silly not me.

How in the WORLD can you say that my source material makes ME look silly right after posting this link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It NEVER ceases to amaze me when ever someone on a conspiracy forum cites a MSM source such as the above link and expects that they will be taken seriously...

How in the world can people be so gullible that they actually BELIEVE what the mass media propaganda is telling them?

One of the major promoters of evolution (the MSM) are known blatant LIARS.

This should be a massive red flag to anyone with even a LITTLE bit of sense.

It's been shown countless times on ATS that the MSM is the most powerful tool used by the elite to manipulate the masses and yet people STILL listen to everything they say.

I see only ONE reason why so many people appear to be completely blind to the fact that everything in the mainstream apparatus is agenda driven:


"The god of this world has blinded the minds of those who don't believe." ~ 2 Corinthians 4:4


And in typical creationist fashion you claim victory without refuting anything.are you sure you don't work for the White House? The mainstream media isn't my source nor is it my inspiration for how I view evolution. In fact, rather contrarily, it was my very religious upbringing and now my education and continued research have yet to falter in providing more evidence to back it up whereas the god only folks are stuck inside the minds of Bronze Age shepherds. So yes I'm sticking with silly.

ETA The NCBI isn't a media source. It's the national center for biotech research,a part of the NIH.
edit on 15-9-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Barcs
^How did god reveal himself to you? Did he speak with you? Send you telepathic messages? Appear in your bedroom? Signs in nature? Usually when people say god revealed himself to them, they are speaking in metaphors based on interpretation of events and coincidences in life. Reading the bible and then "feeling" the word and believing it strongly is NOT empirical evidence of god. It's empirical evidence that you believe in god. It's cool if you believe that, but don't call it empirical evidence, because that only shows you either don't know what that means, or that you are not being honest.

I'm a bit confused about the OP post and title. How do the skulls go against evolution? Even if they are indeed alien skulls (which I'm pretty sure they were confirmed to be a result of a disease), why would it have anything to do with evolution? If aliens did indeed visit our planet in the past as I and many other suspect, it would only prove that in itself, not that evolution of life on earth is wrong. A more appropriate thread title may be "Nephilim skulls?" By throwing the E word in the title it only invites a creation vs evolution debate, and I'm honestly burned out from those.




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Freakish video, the voice and presentation is extremely annoying especially the exaggerated gestures and that exacerbate the already voiced emphasis and constant repetitions... couldn't see it to completion but I noted several factual inaccuracies in it, from the skeleton observations he makes to the facts about cellar death (and why it occurs) to how DNA works...



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Itismenotyou

Barcs
^How did god reveal himself to you? Did he speak with you? Send you telepathic messages? Appear in your bedroom? Signs in nature? Usually when people say god revealed himself to them, they are speaking in metaphors based on interpretation of events and coincidences in life. Reading the bible and then "feeling" the word and believing it strongly is NOT empirical evidence of god. It's empirical evidence that you believe in god. It's cool if you believe that, but don't call it empirical evidence, because that only shows you either don't know what that means, or that you are not being honest.

I'm a bit confused about the OP post and title. How do the skulls go against evolution? Even if they are indeed alien skulls (which I'm pretty sure they were confirmed to be a result of a disease), why would it have anything to do with evolution? If aliens did indeed visit our planet in the past as I and many other suspect, it would only prove that in itself, not that evolution of life on earth is wrong. A more appropriate thread title may be "Nephilim skulls?" By throwing the E word in the title it only invites a creation vs evolution debate, and I'm honestly burned out from those.




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Murgatroid

But hold on, the story gets better. Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy’s femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, “could have” walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, “Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?” Dr. Johanson: “Anatomical similarity.” (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities). Source


The other side of the story
Lucy's Knee Joint
A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Do you know that Orangutans have similar legs? They walk upright sometimes, but are not considered our relative. They have found other Australopithecus skeletons and they are apes of a kind.




Human Foot Bone Misidentified as Lucy's by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

In an interview with CBC radio, lead author Carol Ward said, "Lucy's foot would have been just like yours or mine."1 But what if the bone was actually from a human and not from Lucy at all? Since it was not attached to any other bones, this is a strong possibility. Also, her assertion contradicts other Lucy finds showing that its "big toe" projected sideways, like a thumb.

Other Australopith fossil discoveries showed that Lucy's small size, shoulders, inner ears, hands, and toes made her well-suited for a life swinging from tree branches, as are many modern apes. How can this information be reconciled with the assertion that Lucy walked like a human?2
source

How many times has it been shown that any anomalous finds at digs are tossed out as irrelevant. They take what they like, and toss the rest, and that is supposed to be science? What if a human bone was in the area of an Australopithecus? Does it mean the Australopithecus had that bone or does it mean a human was nearby at some time? You see, when the field has been shown to throw out stuff, make stuff up, and have it accepted as fact for years (Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man) it makes it a little hard to accept they are being above board now.




So, this newly described foot bone has not proven that Lucy walked upright, since definitive proof would require a live Lucy walking, which is not likely. The next best evidence would be to find more complete foot bones actually connected to an Australopith skeleton. Perhaps the third best indicator of Lucy's walking stance would be a reconstruction of whatever bones it did have, alongside other relevant evidence. Is an apparently human foot bone singled out from a scrap heap of "greater than 370" bones really the best evidence for an extinct upright-walking ape?5 Other Lucy-like remains show that their creatures were like chimpanzees and able to grasp tree branches. Duane Gish wrote about this for the Institute for Creation Research in 1987.

All of the species of Australopithecus and Homo habilis had long curved fingers and long curved toes. Creatures with such anatomical features use them for only one purpose—swinging from branch to branch in the trees. So much for the supposed human-like upright locomotion of Homo habilis and Australopithecus, including "Lucy."7 Since then, Lucy-like specimens have been found that indicated their owners had flat ape feet, not arched feet as this Science report and its attendant news articles claimed.8 This was not mentioned in the Science paper.
source

Despite all this knowledge, Lucy is still presented as this very human hairy ape by her hands and feet. Yet, we know that is not the case.

The Propaganda Lucy:



This is a more accurate image of "Lucy"



Thissite has a lot on the actual skeletons of Australopithecus.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Do you know that Orangutans have similar legs? They walk upright sometimes, but are not considered our relative. They have found other Australopithecus skeletons and they are apes of a kind.




Human Foot Bone Misidentified as Lucy's by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

In an interview with CBC radio, lead author Carol Ward said, "Lucy's foot would have been just like yours or mine."1 But what if the bone was actually from a human and not from Lucy at all? Since it was not attached to any other bones, this is a strong possibility. Also, her assertion contradicts other Lucy finds showing that its "big toe" projected sideways, like a thumb.

Other Australopith fossil discoveries showed that Lucy's small size, shoulders, inner ears, hands, and toes made her well-suited for a life swinging from tree branches, as are many modern apes. How can this information be reconciled with the assertion that Lucy walked like a human?2
source

How many times has it been shown that any anomalous finds at digs are tossed out as irrelevant. They take what they like, and toss the rest, and that is supposed to be science? What if a human bone was in the area of an Australopithecus? Does it mean the Australopithecus had that bone or does it mean a human was nearby at some time? You see, when the field has been shown to throw out stuff, make stuff up, and have it accepted as fact for years (Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man) it makes it a little hard to accept they are being above board now.




So, this newly described foot bone has not proven that Lucy walked upright, since definitive proof would require a live Lucy walking, which is not likely. The next best evidence would be to find more complete foot bones actually connected to an Australopith skeleton. Perhaps the third best indicator of Lucy's walking stance would be a reconstruction of whatever bones it did have, alongside other relevant evidence. Is an apparently human foot bone singled out from a scrap heap of "greater than 370" bones really the best evidence for an extinct upright-walking ape?5 Other Lucy-like remains show that their creatures were like chimpanzees and able to grasp tree branches. Duane Gish wrote about this for the Institute for Creation Research in 1987.

All of the species of Australopithecus and Homo habilis had long curved fingers and long curved toes. Creatures with such anatomical features use them for only one purpose—swinging from branch to branch in the trees. So much for the supposed human-like upright locomotion of Homo habilis and Australopithecus, including "Lucy."7 Since then, Lucy-like specimens have been found that indicated their owners had flat ape feet, not arched feet as this Science report and its attendant news articles claimed.8 This was not mentioned in the Science paper.
source

Despite all this knowledge, Lucy is still presented as this very human hairy ape by her hands and feet. Yet, we know that is not the case.

The Propaganda Lucy:



This is a more accurate image of "Lucy"



Thissite has a lot on the actual skeletons of Australopithecus.


Orangutans actually are related to us. Not by direct descent but through common ancestry. They, like us, gorillas, chimps and bonobos are apes.

Mr. Thomas assertion that Lucy had prehensile feet is based on pure conjecture and blatant disregard of corroborating evidence. He addresses morphological features that he incorrectly attempts to pick apart and completely ignores other features such as angle of the foramen magnum that is a clear indicator of bipedalism. He claims that other Australopithecus specimens show that Lucy was just a tree slinging ape but that just isn't the case. He is either willfully ignorant of the fossil record or an outright liar. A. Afarensis did walk upright, just not exactly the way we do now. It truly was a cross between how a Chimp would walk upright and how we do now. Also, sexual dimorphism is not as pronounced in A. Afarensis as it is in older hominoids or apes. While the males were physically larger, the teeth were the same size in males and females with no pronounced canines in males. this is a very different feature than you would find in specimens who were primarily arboreal.

How many times are anomalous finds at digs tossed aside? why don't you tell us? It is after all your claim. I've never been at a dig where anomalies were just tossed in a bucket and ignored. That isn't science and it's not how anyone I know works. You keep going on and on about hoaxes in anthropology. Yes, Piltdown was a legitimate hoax. Nebraska man was poor science done nearly 100 years ago. When was the last hoax perpetrated by the scientific community?

Looking at the pictures you posted, the 2nd one looks an awful lot like how Ar. Ramidus likely would have appeared as opposed to A. Afarensis. I won't even go on about how your final source led me to some online wizard game lol
edit on 15-9-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 





Orangutans actually are related to us. Not by direct descent but through common ancestry. They, like us, gorillas, chimps and bonobos are apes.



An ancient common ancestry, that there is exactly zero less proof of then we actually have for
a Creator. If we do not discount scholarly scripture from hence a closer time where it is written
we actually had a relationship with God/gods/other worldly beingss.

Peter I think you make some incredible claims, with no incredible evidence..



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by peter vlar
 





Orangutans actually are related to us. Not by direct descent but through common ancestry. They, like us, gorillas, chimps and bonobos are apes.



An ancient common ancestry, that there is exactly zero less proof of then we actually have for
a Creator. If we do not discount scholarly scripture from hence a closer time where it is written
we actually had a relationship with God/gods/other worldly beingss.

Peter I think you make some incredible claims, with no incredible evidence..


And I think that the only reason it's not credible to you is because it came from me. There is a ton of proof of common ancestry between the 5 great apes. This really has little to do with god in my opinion but by all means continue to opine about scripture being proof while berating me for talking out my @ss

www.scientificamerican.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

biologos.org...



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Look partner, I wouldn't say you were talking put your ass for paying good money to be taught a myth.
You being a great learner with all good intention I can easily assume, are only deserving the credit
due to you, for being an outstanding pupil. Sure as hell don't believe you should be held responsible
for those who accepted the employment for the job of finding a way to scientifically exile God.
The Wicked look to fulfill an ancient promise.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join