Darwin's theory of our species and its application is pseudoscience used to exploit the weak and po

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
First- Greetings. This is my first post in my 3 plus years of membership. Mods, feel free to move this to the correct forum.

I obviously joined ATS a while ago.

I am mostly a lurker that, generally, only responds in order to correct obvious logical fallacies, defend someone being maligned by argument ad hominem, interject an occasional congratulations for a well reasoned argument, or provide correct and valid information concerning the many false beliefs contained within the freeman movement, while supporting the core issue of sovereignty.
I am also very passionate about the war between the states and the literal plethora (yes, I used that word correctly) of disinformation concerning the Confederacy and the Union's ultimate triumph. This was in actuality a triumph of the Federalists over the Anti-Federalists, which was the only war ever fought over America with any degree of experiential relevance to our day to day activities.
And also, interestingly, it is the only war never truly addressed or discussed rationally by our gracious federal government's public school system, which is regulated by the same war-winning Federal Government's Dept. of Education; but that is another topic for another time.

That discussion is not the purpose of this post. That was a rambling introduction. Please bear with my A.D.D.

Let's get down to business-

I am not a believer in Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species, or more appreciably, how it is continually reinforced as valid while being taught as valid by academia; however, I am not a Christian that believes a fairy god man lives in the sky rendering judgment and often inflicting intense suffering.
Sometimes...for no other reason than to prove to you that he is God (see the book of Job), all while protecting us from a bad man who promises to give us money and sex in exchange for our "soul".
... Our SOUL, which doesn't even freaking exist in any tactile sense.

I honestly can't even type that without laughing.
But I digress-

I believe that the current status quo regarding evolution by the academic scientific community is poppycock.
And I say that as a person with a B.S. in Psychology with a focus on research. I graduated with a 3.85 GPA. I am not an idiot, but my GPA merely reflects diligence and familiarity with the scientific method and logic. It does not in any way reflect intelligence. That takes a truly liberal education in the trivium.
This supposed theory does not stand up to academic integrity and is reinforced and continually validated by ubiquitous confirmation bias that plagues the scientific community.
As a consequence of this theory, social darwinism was developed by someone other than Charles Darwin and then heavily promoted by extremely wealthy individuals who stand to benefit from educating a populace poorly in order to believe that this fairy tale is a universal truth no different than gravity, but in actually, it is no more valid than unicorns and leprechauns.


Roughly 4 million years ago a species of ape existed with small canines and a pelvis allowing bipedal motion. This creature is formally labeled as Australopithecus by science, which comes from Latin for "southern ape".
Make no mistake- they are a class of ape and not humanoid, thus the absence of the genus homo.
The first truly validated species of humanoid to supposedly move out of Africa was Homo Erectus, circa 1 to 2 million years BCE.
They departed Africa with a nearly identical physiology and cranial capacity to modern humans; where they encountered the Neanderthals, who were physically stronger and with a LARGER crainial capacity and unique physiology leading many scientists to refuse them the genus homo. It is my opinion that rh negative white anglo-saxon protestants evolved from the neanderthal.
The African hominid Homo Erectus also encountered the Denisovans, who are possibly the ancestral line to modern Asians and Aboriginals.
Supposedly, these hominids and apes all came from a common ancestor, but show me the money.
We have roughly a 3 million year gap with NO FOSSIL RECORD showing a common ancestor. Where's the missing link? It's never been found and never will.
When these hominids left Africa they encountered other humanoids in areas where they had been evolving in isolation for possibly millions of years.
The idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor is not at all supported by science. It is a status quo rote belief that was created by an aristocrat who inherited the idea from his father and grandfather.

The modern theory of the evolution our species is a well produced laughable reinforcement qualifying the existence of the uber wealthy class- because the law of social darwinism means that only the strong survive and thrive. Poppycock.
edit on 13/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit




posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I am about to leave for work and I will not be able to log back on until I return around midnight EST. (that's east coast time)

If I do not immediately reply or respond, please believe me, it is not due to a lack of interest or to me simply ignoring a comment in a thread about a post that involved several hours of my time.
I hope that people actually join the thread and educate me, if you can.

Some people call me cocky, some smart, some a sanctimonious jerk, but I love a lively debate.

This is a touchy subject. Let's not make this personal.

Cheers. See you all at midnight on the East coast.
-K



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Great thread

S+F

Francis Galton(Darwins cousin and eugenicist) has a big role in the use of Darwins theory to advance the interests of the elite. On the basis that as the elite had risen to the top of humanity, they were the most genetically pure, and the whole "master race" idealism was born.

Eugenics is now called transhumanism.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


OP I would like to ask you ,how you conclude millions of years in your post ?Do you have a source for the dating ?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Crikey. That's good to know. You should tell people, not just ATS.

Do you teach at Uni? Or educate people in these things? You should. They don't know.

It's about time someone who knew for sure all of this came along to put it all right. And all that theory nonsense can be put to rest. Finally.

I bet it has something to do with the tesseract you've got there. Peeking into the 4'th dimension to see how the 5'th works, and joining onto the 3'rd millions of years ago. Amazing stuff.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Okay, I'll break it down for you.

Darwin proposed an explanation for evolution by natural selection. This is only one theory to explain the fact of evolution (allele frequencies do change in populations over time - this has been documented). Most important, evolution is not just strictly Darwinism. It was synthesized with population genetics decades ago by Julian Huxley and other distinguished evolutionary biologists.

Additionally, since you don't "believe" (I'm not sure what belief has to do with a scientific theory) in evolution by natural selection, you must, by extension, reject the copious amount of microbiological, paleontological, embryological, biogeographical, and comparative anatomical data that have been accumulated in the last century and a half.

Now that that is out of the way, we can introduce the brainchild of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer. His idea of the "survival of the fittest" (which is not at all analogous to natural selection) stated that individuals in populations were driven toward increased perfection (not greater adaptation relative to environmental conditions). Many advocates of social Darwinism later applied this to human populations in hopes of attaining "higher-quality" gene pools. This is, of course, an unethical and massively distorted application of science because it 1) violates the basic universal rights of humans, 2) decreased genetic variation is a bad thing in populations, and 3) natural selection says nothing about the progression of societies or humans toward increased perfection, OR the need to purify a population of its imperfections.

NOW, onto the fossil record. You aren't the first person to ask for a "missing link." It doesn't exist. First off, it's an unscientific term, and second, plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record have helped researchers reconstruct the evolutionary history of primates, specifically in the Hominin family. A "missing link" requires an infinite series of intermediates. For example:

Fossil A and Fossil C were uncovered in a recent paleontological dig. Now you eagerly await the location of the "missing link." Luckily paleontologist Dino Dag found Fossil B! So, Fossil A / Fossil B / Fossil C have been uncovered. But wait! What's the missing link between Fossil A and Fossil B, or Fossil B and Fossil C? And so on and so forth. "Missing link" is not used in the parlance of evolutionary science.

If you need me to clarify anything, just ask!


Oh, and one more thing. Can you please tell me what you were thinking when you typed the following...


The idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor is not at all supported by science.


I'm genuinely curious as to why you stated this.
edit on 11/13/2013 by Nacirema because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Interesting theory OP, however you supply no sources for any of the data you presented. At this point, it is nothing more than another theory with no backup.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
A problem many who are NOT Scientists seem to continually misunderstand is the Language of Science,
particularly as it applies to the word "Theory".

Theory, used in science, is akin to LAW.

It's not equivalent to, say, something like "I have a theory about how my favorite sport team can win the next game", no.

Theory of Evolution, just like Theory of Gravity, is fairly certain.

An easy way for someone to dispute Theory of Evolution, or attacking Science, would be to disprove another Theory, like Theory of Gravity.

This can be done quite easily by stepping off any sufficiently elevated place, and falling, or not falling, until such time as the Theory of Gravity is disproven.

One could even make it fun. Skydiving is rather enjoyable.

As to Theory of Evolution itself, I enthusiastically recommend looking at the fossil record as we've a fairly comprehensive map of many species, go-betweens, off-shoots, variations, as well as modern versions. Horses, Whales, and many species are available for questioning.

OP also has their species mixed up and confused as it applies to Hominid migrations.
Neanderthal shares a common ancestor with Cromagnon/Homo Sapiens and that common ancestor is likely Homo Erectus.
Homo Erectus did NOT have a comparable brain size to modern humans. Homo Erectus brain size averages 900 cubic centimeters (cc.) The human/Cromagnon brain averages 1,350 cc. Neanderthal brain averaged slightly larger in the 1,400cc range.
Modern Humans/Homo Sapiens/Cromagnon encountered and had successful 'relationships' with Neanderthal, such that fertile offspring resulted. This is why EVERYONE on the planet, with small exception of some Subsaharan Africans that never left Africa, have Neanderthal DNA at roughly 3%.



edit on 11/13/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 




I am not a believer in Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species, or more appreciably, how it is continually reinforced as valid while being taught as valid by academia; however, I am not a Christian that believes a fairy god man lives in the sky rendering judgment and often inflicting intense suffering.
Sometimes...for no other reason than to prove to you that he is God (see the book of Job), all while protecting us from a bad man who promises to give us money and sex in exchange for our "soul".
... Our SOUL, which doesn't even freaking exist in any tactile sense.

I honestly can't even type that without laughing.
But I digress-


I thought your thread was well written and interesting to read. I will contrast this by saying that I am a believer in Christ. I also do not believe that evolution is a cause of life, but a result of programming sequences reflected in DNA. DNA is a reflection of the Creator, who left us a document outlining how Creation of life was accomplished. If He left us this, what else might be true in the Bible?

The word Father in Hebrew is Aleph (Strong) Bet (House). The Alphabet represents letters. DNA has letters and is reflected in the fact that we have a scripture that outlines how the Father created the Son. In Hebrew, Son is Bet (House) Nun (Seed). The house of seed is defined in the Bible as this:

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

Further down the chapter, it identifies Jesus as the Son of God mentioned in Luke 3 as the one that created Adam.

Luke 3

38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

Here is the description of the Son of God in relation to being the WORD and House of Seed. If you read many of my threads over the last few weeks, I outline the significance of the grain harvest as it applies to our own seed and the book of life recording our information for later retrieval. In the Bible, our birth is known as involution and the Bible even goes on to explain evolution as the result of involution. The terms used are baptism (Involution into a catalyst) and evolution (rising to new life). Why a Catalyst?

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

God works with temples. A temple (like the body) is a template. Earth is a template and refinery of sentience for newly created life. God works on timetables that stretch on for thousands of years. We are one of those creations. Life is created, then the design is judged and / or adapted and changed with new blood. DNA is the key to the refinement and testing of the template. There is one key to this with God. The final template is already there in perfection. We are here riding the wave of time learning as we go. God is already at the end. God already knows our outcome. It is good. As Jacob found out, we are trailing behind His Glory as we move through the timeline he created. He is ahead at the end. We are in transition.

In Hebrew, the word Mother is Aleph (Strong) Mem (Waters). To mix the letters of DNA with the expression proteins rendering a bio-mechanical body for life, there must be a catalyst. As science points out, all chemical combinations require this catalyst. From the Bible, we have the catalyst. It's Hydrogen.

In the Star, hydrogen is one Proton (+) and one Electron (-). They are in perfect balance. In the early stages of creation, science states that this is a high state of order and low entropy. Go back to Father being the Strong House. In Quantum Mechanics, this is the Strong Nuclear Force. Beyond Hydrogen, there again must be a catalyst for the other two to bind to gain mass. All elements have a Neutron for this purpose. The Proton (+) and Neutron combine to form the Strong House (Nuclear Force). The Strong Nuclear force follows a law called invariable symmetry. The same reason you see an unyielding God following His law is the same reason we are able to exist and experience life in a conscious reality. It is a created environment, based on the true reality beyond the creation. You cannot have life apart from his unbending law. The Electron (-) does not follow the invariable symmetry law. It is heeled by the Strong Force (Authority). As a mirror of this, all of nature is a reflection above and below. The process of heeling the electrons is the same as Christ on the Cross.

There were two thieves (electrons) on either side of the Neutral (Christ). One heeled to the Authority of Christ and one did not. What I have just shown you is the entire story of Genesis to Revelation.

Mankind's mark is Carbon. It has 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. As Revelation states, we are the beast in the temple.

Revelation 13

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e-or of mankind] That number is 666.

If you go back to Genesis now, what was it we took? The fruit in the middle of the Garden. What is that fruit? What the Earth produces. Oil. Carbon. The fruit of our own knowledge, the apple so to speak, is our manipulation of the one fruit we were forbidden to take. Technology. The fruit of our knowledge is the technology we would ultimately steal from the middle of the Garden. In the end, it kills us. Why?

The Breath of God is Nitrogen (777) and Oxygen (888). Do you see how this relates in a chain reaction to the Hydrogen in balance? What kills oxygen? Floral carbons. What happens when you mix 999 Fluorine with Carbon? The thing that kills us. Where do we get fluorine? Uranium enrichment. We then put it in our water system and toothpaste.

God did not leave us without the knowledge. I hope you someday come to see it as I see it.

Good thread.


edit on 13-11-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Not supported by science? how about genetics?




There we go proof that we share a common ancestor.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Hey, I like you're attack on Social Darwinism but not evolution. You seem to see the problem with the interpretation "Only the strong survive". This is a world where little fluffy housecats and docile cows proliferate, and mighty tigers and lions battle with extinction. That interpretation of the "strong" surviving is wrong. What evolution says is "That which works gets copied, that which doesn't work dies off". Often that which works isn't strong, like housecats. They proliferate because humans think their cute. Also, the unit of selection often isn't the individual. Animals who work in groups often have traits good for the group at the expense of the individual. So things like self sacrifice are often selected, because groups with this trait live, while groups of greedy backstabbing individuals collectively fail. So there is no real justification for the social darwinism meanness in nature, but evolution is a common sense reality.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 



I am also very passionate about the war between the states and the literal plethora (yes, I used that word correctly) of disinformation concerning the Confederacy and the Union's ultimate triumph. This was in actuality a triumph of the Federalists over the Anti-Federalists, which was the only war ever fought over America with any degree of experiential relevance to our day to day activities.
And also, interestingly, it is the only war never truly addressed or discussed rationally by our gracious federal government's public school system, which is regulated by the same war-winning Federal Government's Dept. of Education; but that is another topic for another time.

I S&Fed you just for this.

Regarding evolution though. I have read in some places that Darwins theory was highly favored by those who subscribe to "survival of the fittest" mentality, because evolution as an idea, rather than a science in this case, was a great foundation with which to build on the ideas of linear social evolution, and a perversion of Hegel's dialectic, which I refer to as the modern dialectic. Whether evolution is sound science, or not. The three ideas together seem to form the baseline of our modern society.

I'll leave it there, as it is a convoluted mess to get into the details of. And honestly, I have a hard time explaining it.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The theory isn't hard to dismiss, after all while the most pretty, or the strongest get the dames, the rest do as well. In fact, if the best were the only procreators any group would die in a minute. So, while the loudest or the tallest can get chicks, even the lame one's do as well. Often "little people" get together and have kids, so do the "dim witted" and in the animal kingdom one need look no further then the dog pound to see all dogs can have puppies.

The problem of course is the complete dismissal of the soul expression in the Human world or the animal kingdom. But since science refuses to "measure" that it would seem we are left with what science wants us to cling to.

As for the NWO, elite stuff, I would suggest one look the language. "Man DESCENDED from apes," is the meme. Not, A-scended, but D-scended, or, man was at his best when he was an ape. Apes are not humans in waiting, nor were we apes. There was a change in form, but apes were not part of the Human Being expression at all - they are strictly animal kingdom expression.

Beings express themselves in various realms in various ways. On occasion, as on Earth, quick shifts in costumes happen often. Slow changes can occur, and manipulation of the form like Monsanto does happens, but is not common.

I wonder, does Monsanto's inclusion of non-living things in the DNA fit into the whole Darwin equation? By taking a chemical they created, and adding a resistance to that chemical in the DNA of x, does Monsanto fall into the: the God category, the intelligent design category or the survival of the fittest category? If they are doing "intelligent design work" then it kind of stands to reason this may have happened before...



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

kyviecaldges
Let's get down to business-

I am not a believer in Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species, or more appreciably, how it is continually reinforced as valid while being taught as valid by academia; however, I am not a Christian that believes a fairy god man lives in the sky rendering judgment and often inflicting intense suffering.
Sometimes...for no other reason than to prove to you that he is God (see the book of Job), all while protecting us from a bad man who promises to give us money and sex in exchange for our "soul".
... Our SOUL, which doesn't even freaking exist in any tactile sense.

I believe that the current status quo regarding evolution by the academic scientific community is poppycock.
And I say that as a person with a B.S. in Psychology with a focus on research. I graduated with a 3.85 GPA. I am not an idiot, but my GPA merely reflects diligence and familiarity with the scientific method and logic. It does not in any way reflect intelligence. That takes a truly liberal education in the trivium.


That's all fine and good but it's nothing more than a personal opinion with nothing else to back up or support your thesis. Perhaps you could point out the actual flaws in evolutionary theory that you have found.


This supposed theory does not stand up to academic integrity and is reinforced and continually validated by ubiquitous confirmation bias that plagues the scientific community.


It's reinforced and validated by academia because there is copious amounts of evidence to support evolution as a Theory as opposed to a Hypothesis. There are decades of peer reviewed papers as well as recent genetic evidence that fully supports evolutionary theory.


As a consequence of this theory, social darwinism was developed by someone other than Charles Darwin and then heavily promoted by extremely wealthy individuals who stand to benefit from educating a populace poorly in order to believe that this fairy tale is a universal truth no different than gravity, but in actually, it is no more valid than unicorns and leprechauns.


Using the bastardization of the original hypothesis being turned into social Darwinism is about as logical as saying Mormonism invalidates all of Christianity or the Einstein's postulations negate Newtonian mechanics. It's a false equivalency.



Roughly 4 million years ago a species of ape existed with small canines and a pelvis allowing bipedal motion. This creature is formally labeled as Australopithecus by science, which comes from Latin for "southern ape".
Make no mistake- they are a class of ape and not humanoid, thus the absence of the genus homo.


I think you are confusing humanoid with hominid and hominoid. no anthropologist ever called any of the various Australopithecines Humanoid


The first truly validated species of humanoid to supposedly move out of Africa was Homo Erectus, circa 1 to 2 million years BCE.
They departed Africa with a nearly identical physiology and cranial capacity to modern humans; where they encountered the Neanderthals, who were physically stronger and with a LARGER crainial capacity and unique physiology leading many scientists to refuse them the genus homo. It is my opinion that rh negative white anglo-saxon protestants evolved from the Neanderthal


H. Erectus was a Hominid, not a humanoid. They came about roughly 1.8 million YA. Modern humans have a cranial capacity approximately 50% larger than H. Erectus which was approx. 900 cc compared to o0ur average of 1350 cc. When H. Erectus left Africa they did not encounter other hominids period let alone H. Neanderthalensis Sapiens. Neanderthal did not come about until much later and is very likely a direct descendent of H. Erectus as are Denisovans and H. Floresiensis. H. Erectus was a pretty impressive creature between the taming of fire, likely raft making ability and tool making they were truly the first real step towards becoming human compared to earlier australopithecines. And just to disperse the 3 million year alleged gap... there are 9 known species of Australopithecus ranging from 4.2 million YA to 1.1 million YA. There are no huge gaps in the fossil record between Australopthecines and H. Erectus. In fact there is an over lap, if not in geography then in terms of time.


The African hominid Homo Erectus also encountered the Denisovans, who are possibly the ancestral line to modern Asians and Aboriginals.
Supposedly, these hominids and apes all came from a common ancestor, but show me the money.
We have roughly a 3 million year gap with NO FOSSIL RECORD showing a common ancestor. Where's the missing link? It's never been found and never will.


please see above. the whole "missing link" term is such a misnomer that it really has no meaning


When these hominids left Africa they encountered other humanoids in areas where they had been evolving in isolation for possibly millions of years..

No, they did not. This is shown to be true in both genetic analysis and the fossil record. H. Erectus is the ancestor of Neanderthal and Denisovan


The idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor is not at all supported by science. It is a status quo rote belief that was created by an aristocrat who inherited the idea from his father and grandfather.


please explain how this is NOT supported by science. please explain how every peer reviewer has completely got it wrong because otherwise your insisting on a multidisciplinary, worldwide conspiracy between all scientists.



The modern theory of the evolution our species is a well produced laughable reinforcement qualifying the existence of the uber wealthy class- because the law of social darwinism means that only the strong survive and thrive. Poppycock.
edit on 13/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit


there's one part there I think stands out... POPPYCOCK. evolution has nothing to do with the justification of the upper classes mass of wealth or power. social Darwinism and evolution are two entirely separate concepts. one is based on science and has data to support it and the other is a philosophy of how to screw people over for personal gain.
edit on 13-11-2013 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

crankyoldman

As for the NWO, elite stuff, I would suggest one look the language. "Man DESCENDED from apes," is the meme. Not, A-scended, but D-scended, or, man was at his best when he was an ape. Apes are not humans in waiting, nor were we apes. There was a change in form, but apes were not part of the Human Being expression at all - they are strictly animal kingdom expression.


Man IS an ape right now at this very moment. We share a common ancestor with all other apes. you're too caught up in simple semantics to see the bigger picture. Evolutionary theory has been off of the "survival of the fittest" meme for quite some time. It's the rest of the world that seems a bit slow in catching up with science. evolution is not a linear progression from A to B. It almost seems as though you are personally offended that academics insist that you may have ancestors who were dragging their knuckles through the forest at one point.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


as my granma used to say[translated]: "you're confusing gymnasium with magnesium "

evolution as posited by darwin

is not going anywhere in particular.


the social darwinists and survival of the fittest crowd are ascribing an illusionary PURPOSE
and MEANING to evolution, to justify their socio and psychopathic behavior just like any cult.

these are the same promoters of the "myth" of PROGRESS.
edit on 13-11-2013 by Metaphysique because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Good post. Your meandering introduction leaves me hoping for a thread from you about the Civil War.

I also find contemporary explanations of human origin to be inadequate. Natural selection is a verfiable mechanism, as is mutation. The rate of random mutation, however, has been estimated to be extremely low (somewhere around .04%). Calculations have been done indicating that evolution from single-cells to humans would take far longer than the 3-4 billion year timespan indicated by the fossil record.
Unless mutation is not as random as we think...

The phenotypes we see in modern people do suggest three or four original 'species' which contributed ethnicities of today. To me, the path from early hominids to homo sapiens is fairly obvious. The leap from apes to hominids is much more difficult to imagine, especially considering the relatively short amount of time for such a radical evolution. And the most unique 'mutation' of all -- intelligence -- begs for a better explanation than random genetic mutation.

Absence of direct links in the fossil record does not make it any easier to accept the idea of humans randomly evolving from early primates. But...fossils are only created under specific circumstances. Undoubtedly, many species have existed in the past and either never left fossil evidence or the fossils have been destroyed, so we will never know of them.

Don't allow those who dismiss your thoughts to stifle you. There are many on ATS who will refute anything that cannot be verified by a PhD. These members are more concerned with appearing to know the truth than with finding the truth.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   

peter vlar

crankyoldman

As for the NWO, elite stuff, I would suggest one look the language. "Man DESCENDED from apes," is the meme. Not, A-scended, but D-scended, or, man was at his best when he was an ape. Apes are not humans in waiting, nor were we apes. There was a change in form, but apes were not part of the Human Being expression at all - they are strictly animal kingdom expression.


Man IS an ape right now at this very moment. We share a common ancestor with all other apes. you're too caught up in simple semantics to see the bigger picture. Evolutionary theory has been off of the "survival of the fittest" meme for quite some time. It's the rest of the world that seems a bit slow in catching up with science. evolution is not a linear progression from A to B. It almost seems as though you are personally offended that academics insist that you may have ancestors who were dragging their knuckles through the forest at one point.


Science moved onto a different meme? My meme, "I'm a human, not a ape, I am Human Being having a physical body experience." The body comes from a myriad of efforts, "descending" from another physical Earthly form is not one of them. I'm not caught up in anything, only pointing out that the "theory" and it is a "theory" nothing more then a "theory" is not the truth, but a "theory." Kind of like, "the earth is flat and we imprison those who speak otherwise." kind of like, "there is one true god and we imprison those who say otherwise." Unless you account for the rest of me, which resides in a myriad of forms other then this, the "theory" is incomplete at best.

I'm so confused why the folks on this planet are so desperate to prove to themselves in mass that they are "descended from apes" instead of proving to themselves personally they are so much more then the body. I do not understand why proving we came from apes makes people feel happy and proving they are nothing more then hairless apes makes them giddy.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Nacirema
 


I did not take the OP as denying natural selection or mutation. It seemed to me OP's grief is with the confirmation bias that plagues mainstream science. To be acknowledged by the majority of scientists, new information must fit with contemporary theory. There is a tipping point when the evidence is overwhelming and change is accepted, but the majority will stubbornly refuse to even consider a new theory until that point.

To your claim that a 'missing link' is a scientific impossibility -- that is simply not true. Any significant change in phenotype due to mutation will take generations to evolve.
A bird with a short beak has offspring with an abnormally long beak (random mutation).
That long-beaked offspring can reach more food, so it passes on more DNA.
Resultant generations have longer and longer beaks, and gradually outbreed the short-beaks.
If all of the dead birds happened to land in silty mud and be covered up, we would have a complete fossil record of the evolution from short-beaks to long-beaks.

Perhaps there is a fossilized missing link between apes and hominids, and we just haven't found it yet.
Or perhaps one never lived, in which case it is even more difficult to believe humans randomly evolved from apes.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   

winofiend
Crikey. That's good to know. You should tell people, not just ATS.

Do you teach at Uni? Or educate people in these things? You should. They don't know.

It's about time someone who knew for sure all of this came along to put it all right. And all that theory nonsense can be put to rest. Finally.

I bet it has something to do with the tesseract you've got there. Peeking into the 4'th dimension to see how the 5'th works, and joining onto the 3'rd millions of years ago. Amazing stuff.


I don't know quite what you were trying to say with this comment, but it seems as though you were attempting sardonic wit while failing miserably.

I absolutely believe that scientists that willingly support this ridiculous notion receive funding and those who do not support it do not receive funding.
This belief is accepted as truth while being based solely on correlations.
I am skeptical of the scientific establishment because they are promoting a hypothesis as theory using loosely gathered specimens found in the fossil record, essentially mixing ape and human skeletal remains, in order to validate the common ancestor theory, all due to confirmation bias.

The only reason that I am replying to you is because your comment was most definitely NOT amazing stuff.
Not even close mate.

Come back and join in when you got some game son.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join