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.

 

Leading geneticist says we are a hybrid of Pigs and Chimps

page: 16
43
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





it IS elitist because you won't even look at it. you-"Sheldrake is raving mad... but I have never read nor listened to any of his ideas.". Ok


I've never said anything about Sheldrake, ever. Perhaps you are confusing me with one of the other people here.

I'm not sure how it's relevant to the point about pigs and chimps. If it's relevant, explain how and I'll have a look. If it's not, I'm not going to be dragged down a side line while you fail to provide supporting evidence for some bizarre theory you are for some reason supporting.

like I said, show me evidence to support your case. Otherwise I'm not really interested.

Sorry for double post folks.




posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Antigod
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





it IS elitist because you won't even look at it. you-"Sheldrake is raving mad... but I have never read nor listened to any of his ideas.". Ok


I've never said anything about Sheldrake, ever. Perhaps you are confusing me with one of the other people here.

I'm not sure how it's relevant to the point about pigs and chimps. If it's relevant, explain how and I'll have a look. If it's not, I'm not going to be dragged down a side line while you fail to provide supporting evidence for some bizarre theory you are for some reason supporting.

like I said, show me evidence to support your case. Otherwise I'm not really interested.

Sorry for double post folks.


I think after I reread that I questioned whether you were a Sheldrake basher. So great this can be a wonderful learning moment all around. When you have an hour and a half watch the video I posted

and especially at the 23:00 mark he starts talking about basically what my argument is with some of the people here regarding the "how it works" not the "how much change we see" aspect of this subject. Not saying I have proof whether or not we came from a man-bear-pig, I'm pointing out that "conventional" (for lack of a better word) science is happy to trudge along digging up bones in hopes of finding that missing link. The thing is the mechanism for those changes is not in the dirt, but they'll never admit they've been looking in the wrong place.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





I think after I reread that I questioned whether you were a Sheldrake basher. So great this can be a wonderful learning moment all around. When you have an hour and a half watch the video I posted



Sorry dude, no videos! I refuse to blow that much time. I'll skim some of his work in text later on.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Antigod
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





I think after I reread that I questioned whether you were a Sheldrake basher. So great this can be a wonderful learning moment all around. When you have an hour and a half watch the video I posted



Sorry dude, no videos! I refuse to blow that much time. I'll skim some of his work in text later on.


you were one of the "magical thinking" people weren't you? see that is exactly what I mean about that mindset, they say "there's no evidence" and then they say "I don't have time to look at their evidence". You have time to joke around on pig/hum hybrid threads on a conspiracy site, why not take an hour and twenty minutes (and I even spared you that time by pointing out my point at the 23:00 mark) and see where the world is heading. and it's not a "video" it's a video of one of his lectures on morphogenetics. I hope it's not outside your comfort or ego zone but it's something that's not going away.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





you were one of the "magical thinking" people weren't you? see that is exactly what I mean about that mindset, they say "there's no evidence" and then they say "I don't have time to look at their evidence". You have time to joke around on pig/hum hybrid threads on a conspiracy site, why not take an hour and twenty minutes (and I even spared you that time by pointing out my point at the 23:00 mark) and see where the world is heading. and it's not a "video" it's a video of one of his lectures on morphogenetics. I hope it's not outside your comfort or ego zone but it's something that's not going away.


I dont watch videos for research because...

I Don't retain heard data anywhere near as well as visual. My memory is image based.
I read massively faster than anyone can talk.
I like to get up a new tabs to check references and other sources as I flip between text sources.
I'd have to wear headphones and pretend my young children and their friends aren't screaming for my attention 1 hr 20 mins. Text I can look up from much easier, and I can hear if anyone tries to kill someone.

I'm finding your attitude frankly insulting. I didn't say I wasn't going to research it, I said 'no video'.

And I did research it. I wasn't impressed overly by his work. Like I said in the pm, I don't dismiss the paranormal, I just want to see proper working and repeatability in experiments.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 

you "researched" it? sure you did. what kind of research have you done?

how about spending ten minutes past the 23:00 mark on the video and tell me where Sheldrake may be wrong. You spent the time to watch the op video didn't you? You referred to it as magical thinking didn't you? if it was someone else then I'm sorry and need to go back and review all this. Maybe you can read one of Sheldrake's books when the kids are quiet? maybe start with this one www.amazon.com... or maybe this one might help also www.amazon.com...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386109619&sr=1-3&keywords=lynne+mctaggart+books



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Please, cease the self pious homilies. There is a dearth of information on Sheldrake all over the Internet. Insisting that someone didnt do any research because they had a valid rationale for not being able to sit through the video you presented is ludicrous when the amount if information both for and against his hypothesis is literally everywhere.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


I dont watch videos for research because...

I Don't retain heard data anywhere near as well as visual. My memory is image based.
I read massively faster than anyone can talk.
I like to get up a new tabs to check references and other sources as I flip between text sources.


Me too. Hate videos unless I'm using them for mind manipulation (distraction), when I need to get out of my own head.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


"self pious" go away with your elitist attitude. I asked Antigod to at least watch ten minutes of the lecture and tell me where he is wrong and after telling me she's researched him she can't find the time nor interest? That's ridiculous because I mean why else is she here? She supposedly watched the op's video how unreasonable is it to ask for ten minutes? That's that intellectual stonewalling I've been talking about.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

SovereignEve
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Must be true, look at our politicians


All jokes aside, this seems to far fetched. I believe the aquatic ape theory sounds more plausible than this.
Interesting find though, however.

~Sovereign

I agree, the pig gene must have been dominant in bankers.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by peter vlar
 


"self pious" go away with your elitist attitude. I asked Antigod to at least watch ten minutes of the lecture and tell me where he is wrong and after telling me she's researched him she can't find the time nor interest? That's ridiculous because I mean why else is she here? She supposedly watched the op's video how unreasonable is it to ask for ten minutes? That's that intellectual stonewalling I've been talking about.


I'll go away with my elitist attitude when you do the same with your ignorant one. You're making assumptions about what others do or don't do or what they should or did watch and expecting them to do your bidding because you demand it yet I'm the elitist? Get over yourself. What difference does it make WHERE the research was done? As I stated earlier, there are copious amounts of information both for and against his views and the video you posted certainly isn't the pinnacle of his wisdom. I'm wondering if you work for the US dept. of education because you're demanding that someone learn your material and yours alone and debate based on that. That isn't learning, it's parroting. If you had read anything else she posted you would be aware of exactly why she preferred to read information as opposed to watching a video. Perhaps she could have addressed the specificity of your inquiry a bit better by addressing those specific 10 minutes you alluded to but that doesn't make her a better or worse poster, researcher, learner however you want to adjudicate a descriptor. Was your request to watch a specific portion of the video unreasonable? I would agree that it is not. What is unreasonable is to get your panties in a knot because they opted for a different route. Look, I'm probably the last person who should be spouting off any 'kumbaya let's get along and love one another' crap. I've been known to be a ridiculous prick on here occasionally and sincerely need to take my own advice and tone it down now and again but I just don't see the difference where the information comes from as long as someone attempts to become well informed on the subject.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 

I'm pointing out exactly where Sheldrake speaks to my main point with you guys and gals. You guys can't even come up with anything close to what he says explains the directing force in genetic morphology. That's kinda a big thing wouldn't you think? Maybe something that needs to be paid attention to, but again I can understand why people with so much time invested in denying this stuff would react the ways you do.

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings by attempting to put them on the right track. but whether you guys want to believe it or not this stuff is not going away. It's ok when you guys are making fun of people with "magical thoughts" and "pseudo-science gibberish"- that's not elitist at all. You guys are the ones who've spent years reading about this stuff and know all about the chemical processes of dna and have jotted down and drawn morphological changes from the past, but you still can't explain what guides those changes.

Why wouldn't you be interested in finding out more about it? Why is it like a third rail to you guys? If you are going to study it and then come up with some conclusions why morphogenetics is wrong or why Sheldrake is raving mad then fine that would be awesome and I'd be all ears. Instead you (you're not the only one) adopt this arrogant (maybe that's the better word for the mindset) "no time for this nonsense" attitude and dismiss it offhandedly. That my friend is elitist and arrogant and totally embraces ignorance.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

bottleslingguy
reply to post by peter vlar
 

I'm pointing out exactly where Sheldrake speaks to my main point with you guys and gals. You guys can't even come up with anything close to what he says explains the directing force in genetic morphology. That's kinda a big thing wouldn't you think?

Sure, it's a big thing.

But that doesn't mean people should, as you seem to have done, simply believe what some person claims - that it must be a "field," when there's not one scrap of evidence for this field.

You believe that tripe because you prefer to.

Others may prefer to have a little evidence behind their own beliefs. Deal with it.

Harte



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   


She supposedly watched the op's video how unreasonable is it to ask for ten minutes? That's that intellectual stonewalling I've been talking about.
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


No, I googled and read what Mccarthy published, way more data there.

Like I said, I dislke videos. And as Peter said, there's shed load of stuff about sheldrake on line, pro and anti. Some was even witten by him. I like a balanced argument, not being lectured to.

edit on 4-12-2013 by Antigod because: typo



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Deal with it.

I can deal with you guys believing in the wrong things. have you heard the news they just discovered a 400,000 y.o. human femur? how many times do the text books have to be rewritten before you people realize the mechanistic view is not sustainable?



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 

so what do you think about the matter of morphogenesis after all this research?



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

bottleslingguy

Deal with it.

I can deal with you guys believing in the wrong things. have you heard the news they just discovered a 400,000 y.o. human femur? how many times do the text books have to be rewritten before you people realize the mechanistic view is not sustainable?


The DNA recovered from the femur you mentioned was not from an AMH but from a Densiovan which I would fully expect to see at that age. What is being rewritten because if this other than further understanding our past? I don't understand why that's a bad thing. Not understanding that science is not immutable is a bigger issue.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

peter vlar

bottleslingguy

Deal with it.

I can deal with you guys believing in the wrong things. have you heard the news they just discovered a 400,000 y.o. human femur? how many times do the text books have to be rewritten before you people realize the mechanistic view is not sustainable?


The DNA recovered from the femur you mentioned was not from an AMH but from a Densiovan which I would fully expect to see at that age. What is being rewritten because if this other than further understanding our past? I don't understand why that's a bad thing. Not understanding that science is not immutable is a bigger issue.

No doubt about that.

Add in the fact that one should know that any member of the genus Homo is correctly referred to as human.

Harte



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



it explains how dna is controlled.

But DNA is not controlled. Its action is intrinsic and occurs automatically under the right conditions.


And as far as the evidence for [Sheldrake's claims], again you don't see it because...

If there is nothing to see, what does your 'theory' explain? Why do you need a theory to explain something that doesn't show any signs of existing?


It is something people like you probably will never be able to understand no matter how much time you spend in schools.

It's not hard to understand. It's just wrong, superstitious and foolish.


why doesn't this person take this opportunity to shut me up and explain where Sheldrake has no evidence?

I don't have to. You have already admitted there is no evidence for Sheldrake's 'theory'.

Allow me to share with you one of the fruits of my long, expensive education:


The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable. Source



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 

the difference is each time you guys find something you have to change what you thought was right but will never admit you really don't have a clue. " The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.

Based on previously discovered ancient DNA and fossil evidence, scientists generally agreed that humans’ direct ancestors shared a common ancestor with Neanderthals and Denisovans that lived about half a million years ago in Africa. "

See that's because you guys are looking for the answers in the wrong places.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join