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.
OpenEars123
Hi, apologies for this short thread as it's really just a question.
First and foremost I need to state that I do not believe in religion, at all.
But this question has been on my mind for some time, and this seems to be the best place to hear different answers.
Our world is 2/3's covered in water. Life as we know it adapts to the environment surrounding it. So why did we evolve and decide to habitat just 1/3 of our world? Why don't we live in or under water?
To religious people I respect your views (excluding the ones who push their agenda, and condemn non believers) but i would really appreciate a civil discussion.
I am popping out for a few hours, and look forward to some insight when I return.
NB: If this has been discussed many times, I apologise to all in advance. I thought writing this thread would still be much quicker than using a flakey search function
Regards
VHB skOrpiOn did not say he bought the idea, he said the opposite; just gave out information to be read and determined by whatever individual takes a look at it.
ReturnofTheSonofNothingYep, I never said he did buy it either (although it begs the question of if you think it's a load of BS, then why post it?). However, I thought it was worth mentioning that it's rejected by the overwhelming majority of experts in it's own given field. Don't you think that would be useful, for someone taking on that information, to know that virtually the entire fraternity of anthropology had rejected it and that it never passed peer review?.
VHB
As far as anthropologists go; a better moniker would be anthro-apologists. As far as determining the origin of this specie 'human' have not been convincing using an evolution model only.
RTSN... ohh no. I guess you wouldn't.
Couple of points/questions -
- The world's anthropologists aren't some homogeneous hive-mind. They all have their own opinions and are individuals. Many are good people who have a passion for science. If you believe they are all saying the same thing about the aquatic ape hypothesis due to some conspiracy, how is it none have come forward to spill the beans? No conspiracy can be all powerful.
RTSN- If it is indeed a grand conspiracy you are suggesting, then I guess you will continue to believe that, regardless of the evidence you see. Not saying that conspiracies don't happen (they do, just not on a grand scale due to the above point). With people who are convinced of some grand conspiracy it's always the same - Evidence for the conspiracy confirms the conspiracy; Evidence against the conspiracy also confirms the conspiracy. Absence of evidence confirms the conspiracy. You can't win really.
RTSN- What would the motivation be for the whole of science to suppress the aquatic ape hypothesis, and does it really make any sense to anyone other than conspiracy theorists? All part of some grand scheme I'll wager.
UxoriousMagnus
*************************************************************************************************
because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....
it is a good thing that evolution happens quickly before all the weak small ones die off.....if it took millions of years or something then they would all be dead and eaten.....so your model also require fast evolution.....I guess
vethumanbeing
Peer review never crossed its mind. Experts in that field are not its forte. Overwelming judgment was just a figment of the imagination (not applied surely) as it was so innocent; posed as a hum...
Why is there still the nagging problem of the question "Is an ostrich as a bird a dinasour Teradactile relic".
Why are Tyranousaurous Rex's front legs/arms so short as to be ineffectual to a point of laughter (grooming purposes). Were they feathered creatures?
dp4lyfe
Evolution? The sea? I just cannot seem to swallow these theories. I mean honestly think about it. If in fact our existence as humans was actually a product of evolution, then how do you explain our thought process, our human essence (the soul)...or our five senses? I can see, for arguments sake, that the big bang was the beginning of life and it created physical beings over time, but our inner thoughts, the ability to love and think? How on earth would a meteor create that? Just doesnt make sense. I beelieve we were created by the source at different intervals in time. Obviously a world full of dinosaurs would be unproductive. So we were created after their extinction. I belueve in divine intervention...divine could very well be aliens. We wer strategically placed on this planet at the right time for human existence. The fish have their own purpose, as do the mammals, as do the humans. So, in my opinion, did we evolve from the sea? I think not.
vethumanbeing
I watched that animal planet/discovery collaberation. "mermaid a body found". I looked at it from a different perspective (what if the truth is being told as purely fictional). Its done with feature film all of the time. Grand schemes, maybe to enlighten the idiot human.
dp4lyfe
I can see, for arguments sake, that the big bang was the beginning of life...
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Life on other planets will be subject to the laws of evolution, and with an infinite variety of environmental conditions and different elements and compounds which are abundant on each planet, the chances of us being from another planet and yet sharing all of the above (and much more) is as close to zero as makes no odds.
MarsIsRed
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Life on other planets will be subject to the laws of evolution, and with an infinite variety of environmental conditions and different elements and compounds which are abundant on each planet, the chances of us being from another planet and yet sharing all of the above (and much more) is as close to zero as makes no odds.
If you think about it, that isn't necessarily true. If life evolves in an ocean on an Earth like planet, one particularly efficient design is 'fish-shaped'. Convergent evolution has ended up with the same design many times. Fish require (presumably) front facing eyes/mouth, general bilateral symmetry, two, four or six fins/arms/legs etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find aliens that would seem perfectly at home in the Star Wars cantina! Sure, they may also have eyes on the sides of their bodies, and a giant ear on the top of their head - but in many cases I think alien life would be readily recognisable.
edit on 14-1-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)
vethumanbeing
ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
vethumanbeing
The head would be the anchor heavy mass balance point to its body, the tail or spinal column is over engineered; the arms? would be the divit pivot points to balance the upper body; this body could never manuveur successfully as would be awkward slow off balance; hind legs too large to do anything but run at speed at what? A tree? They are static. Push over a stegasourous, and with those little forearm/legs do what exactly? Tail as a weapon? or a balancing act? They were too large for the flora system existing and ate themselves into oblivion. Do you have another opinion; they were also carniverous meat eaters? What is your idea about (after the demise) lemurs became the primary officiate in profligating the mammal specie.
UxoriousMagnus
Grimpachi
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
The fish issue in evolution is a problem because all of the fish fossils look like.....well.....fish. There is no evidence of any sort of evolution within this specie.
ahhem......posted yesterday fossil evidence of
How We Got On Land, Bone by Bone
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....
Evolution is about survival of the species I hope you can see the difference. I will tell you it isn't about the individual.edit on 14-1-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
yeah....don't take much of what you post to heart there pachi....sorry
dp4lyfe
then how do you explain our thought process, our human essence (the soul)...or our five senses?
If humans evolved, then is human sentience, speech and higher mental functions (ability to think in abstracts, questioning our origins etc) a product of DNA? Did the original cell have genetic matter that causes these higher mental capabilities that manifested billions of years later in humans? Or was it a new addition later down the line? If so, how can you be so sure, besides what peer reviewed
Lingweenie...
And I don't understand how humans would be the only ones that would have a "soul."
UxoriousMagnus
DISRAELI
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
You starve in a grocery store if all the tins are being grabbed by people who are bigger and stronger than you are.
If all the sea plants and plankton and small fish are being grabbed by the fish which are twice your size, your best chance of survival might be to work out a way of getting at the untouched plants on the edge of the shore.
As for the "nineteenth-century migration" analogy; Even if they were not starving, they were not prospering. Why else do you think they made the voyage?
I don't have time to teach you about why the Protestant religious people made the trek over....
As far as the actual thread is about though....so only the smallest, weakest who were afraid and starving off decided to take to the shores? The smallest ..... weakest........got it
dp4lyfe
Evolution? The sea? I just cannot seem to swallow these theories. I mean honestly think about it. If in fact our existence as humans was actually a product of evolution, then how do you explain our thought process, our human essence (the soul)...or our five senses? I can see, for arguments sake, that the big bang was the beginning of life and it created physical beings over time, but our inner thoughts, the ability to love and think? How on earth would a meteor create that? Just doesnt make sense. I beelieve we were created by the source at different intervals in time. Obviously a world full of dinosaurs would be unproductive. So we were created after their extinction. I belueve in divine intervention...divine could very well be aliens. We wer strategically placed on this planet at the right time for human existence. The fish have their own purpose, as do the mammals, as do the humans. So, in my opinion, did we evolve from the sea? I think not.
Pauligirl
UxoriousMagnus
*************************************************************************************************
because this goes against the premise of "survival of the fittest" ....in your personal model it is "survival of the weakest and smallest".....
it is a good thing that evolution happens quickly before all the weak small ones die off.....if it took millions of years or something then they would all be dead and eaten.....so your model also require fast evolution.....I guess