Humans DID NOT come from Apes????

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Phage

 

Yes that theory is wrong, but if not properly explained some people might be confused.

We have vestigal traits and some embryonic structures that develop and then either vanish or change in later development. These include tails, nictating membranes, and gill pouches.
[edit on 27/8/08 by MikeboydUS]

Good point. The original statement:

what pray tell me does science have to say about the fact that when humans begin life as an embryo the embryo is reptilian

Was stating Recapitulation Theory (in it's broadest form) as fact. It is a theory from the late 19th century and has been rejected. A human embryo is never reptilian.

Phage....maybe it's possible to look at this a different way?

Perhaps ALL mammalian embryos pass through similar stages, as they develop. AND resemble other species....but the chromosomes do their jobs, and continue to specialize, per the DNA programming.

This, I learned, when I found out the answer to "Why do human males have nipples?"

Answer: The fetus grows to a certain point before the gender is fixed....so, by default, every fetus grows two nipples. Once it is determined to be female, then lactating apparatus is specialized, the uterus forms, etc, etc....



[edit on 8/27/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Perhaps ALL mammalian embryos pass through similar stages, as they develop. AND resemble other species....but the chromosomes do their jobs, and continue to specialize, per the DNA programming.

The originial quote:

humans begin life as an embryo the embryo is reptilian

Is incorrect. A human embryo is mammalian. The poster did not say "resembles", he said "is". (Please, let's not discuss what "is" means). A human embryo never changes its class through its development. It is always mammalian.

During embryonic development, some rudimentary structures are common between classes. As development continues those structures become distinct structures with completely different functions (according to the class) or may disappear entirely.

This process presents a means of tracing evolutionary history. My intent was to point out that the original theory is invalid and should not be used for this purpose.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by Phage]

Okay, thanks for all the posts.. Just to clear a few things up, I made a simple math mistake in the middle of being excited that I found something odd that I had never really thought about before. Yes, I am in a genetics class and yes, I have taken Biology. Most teachers don't cover things that are not "socially acceptable". They are to scared of scrutiny. I was very interested in evolution and the chromosomes. Much thanks to everyone that had a constructive opinion on this topic. All the videos and posts really helped me out. Also, it showed me how a simple mistake can make you lose all credibility lol. Thanks again!!

Did not come from apes?

No, no... you need to understand that we ARE apes. Always have been. Even if you could somehow prove that we don't share a common ancestor (which you can't), we are still taxonomically and phylogenetically classified as primates based solely on shared characteristics.

i totally love your deduction here so i will quote you in full again for anyone who missed even though ATS may not like the un-trimmed quote.

Originally posted by MaximRecoil
Evolution is one of the hokiest theories ever. It is also typically presented as a "bait & switch". It can be proven that evolution, at least on a certain scale, does happen, and that's the "bait". The theory that life as we know it today evolved from a single celled organism; that is the "switch".

You see things like this all time. For example, someone might say "Evolution is just a theory", and someone else will holler "No, evolution is a fact!" Another pet response is "Gravity is also just a theory!"

This is classic bait & switch. Again, evolution is indeed a fact, but the theories about what it has accomplished are simply theories. The same goes for gravity. Gravity is a fact, but the theories surrounding how it works are of course, theories.

I believe that evolution is limited to the information present in the gene pool for any given type of organism, and for each type of organism, if you could go back in time far enough, you would find an original of each type that was coded by someone. I don't believe that any complex design happens without direction.

Then we have abiogenesis which is even more hokey than the theory of evolution. The idea that the building blocks of life can be assembled into life, complete with a metabolism and reproductive capability, with nothing more than random, undirected, mechanismless energy is absurd. Disassemble anything you have at home, and then hit it with any form of random energy you want, and see if it reassembles itself. Do it with something incredibly simple even, such as a bottle and a cap that are separated from each other. See if you can get the cap to screw itself onto the bottle. Use electricity, wind, set it out in the sun ... whatever. Now try it with something a lot more complex, like say, a completely disassembled gun. However, a little directed energy makes it easy. Your brain directs your muscles in specific manners of motion and you can assemble anything given the proper knowledge and capabilities. Secular science would have you believe that random, undirected processes completely lacking in intelligence, can invent far more impressive things (e.g., life) than humans (who have intelligence as a means of directing energy) can.

this next piece i would like to iquire of you if you think this may be a reason for 4000 genetic defects supposed to be contained within the human gene stystem.

So anyway, I don't believe that humans evolved from apes, nor do I believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Apes evolved from apes, and humans evolved from humans. None of the evolution has resulted in anything more complex; but rather, it has resulted in various specializations and an overall loss of information due to mutations, bottlenecks, etc. All of the variations have come from various combinations of the information in the original gene pool of any given kind of organism (i.e., no new information has been generated through evolution).

You can get a poodle from a wolf, but you can never get a wolf from a poodle. The wolf has enough information in its gene pool to create all of the known types of domestic dogs (either through artifical or natural selection), but each of those types of domestic dogs only has a specialized slice of the wolf's information. Evolution is a means of splitting and reordering existing information, not a means of generating new information (new information comes from intelligence).

again love your reasoning..

daz__

Originally posted by Lasheic
Did not come from apes?

No, no... you need to understand that we ARE apes. Always have been. Even if you could somehow prove that we don't share a common ancestor (which you can't), we are still taxonomically and phylogenetically classified as primates based solely on shared characteristics.

That is why I put question marks at the end of the title.. I didn't say we didn't come from apes, I was questioning it. That is why there were question marks at the end. I understand that we share many characteristics with the ape, I am just exploring different theories. After all, this is ATS, and it is a site for questioning the "proven".

reply to post by KaginD


i dont know about other Humans,but i know i didn't "evolve" from an ape...

lol at mainstream science

here's a little taste
Lloyd Pye
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Sparky63


True, but he could have looked up a recent evolutionary chart before asking... and the severe lack of math skills... well that's just asking for insult, no offense OP . Your observations are correct though, the current theories do not place us as descendants of apes, but rather - cousins xD.

reply to post by KaginD

That is why I put question marks at the end of the title.. I didn't say we didn't come from apes, I was questioning it.

Ok, but don't you see how the question becomes rather silly when you take into account the fact that we ARE apes both genetically and taxonomically. It then becomes a question of: Can an Ape come from an Ape?

reply to post by Skipper1975

lol at mainstream science

You live in a world built upon mainstream science. Nothing of benefit has come to mankind through pseudoscience or fairytales.

The guy in the video you posted doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. Saying that science says that humans came from gorillas and chimps? Absolutely Ludicrous. Animals don't get genetic diseases? I wonder how many vetrenarians he's talked to, and by all rights then ignored.

He says we share 50% of our genetic code with a mouse? Hah, try closer to 85%. Further, of that 85% similarity - we share over 90% of the same genes linked to diseases in humans are found in mice as well - which is why Mice are such good "lab rats" for testing new medications. Their immune systems are very close to ours.

Ok, and here's a bit question. I can kind of understand why some people think we might have been tinkered with - because humans do look quite a bit different from other apes despite our similarities. Why is it, that when creating humans then, would have have given us features almost exactly what we would expect to find from a semi-aquatic primate? Increased fat ratio, a removal of all substantial hair except on the head, exclusively bipedal movement, a hooded nose, etc?

Now, granted, the Aquatic Ape theory isn't well accepted in the scientific community. (Of course, it's not laughed and immediately rejected the way "Annunakididit" is, and you can figure out why for yourself) However, it is a much better model to explain the differences between humans and other apes than Savahanna theory IMO.

For instance, out of all the Great Ape species - humans are the only ones which can hold their breath. Why would this ability be selected for in the Savannah? What about hair? We shed most of it in a cooling effort, they say, but why are we covered in hair on the most energy expensive (and warmest) organ in our bodies? Perhaps to help keep our heads warm on the cool Savannah nights - but it would also be a benefit to mothers traveling in water as it would give their babies a tether to hold onto. Human children are born with much greater fat ratios than those of other great apes - perhaps to give them greater buoyancy.

To name just a few, but it's still not enough to make a solid enough case to stand against the Savannah theory. For instance, while it's true that many semi-aquatic mammals do lose their hair, many do not. This is not conclusive proof.

However, I have no doubt that as we uncover more and more of our shared history, we'll discover the necessary evidence that suggests a semi-aquatic heritage. What we will not find, however, is evidence of genetic tampering by alien species from the planet Nibiru. (Nor will we find a planet Nibiru)

BTW: About the fused chromosome. Assuming you'd actually be able to manipulate the Chromosome the way he says (you can't), there's a very easy way to falsify what he's saying. If fused Chromosomes do not occur in nature, then that is a very strong indication that we were genetically tampered with - because it's something that does not happen naturally. If Chromosomes DO fuse in nature, then what he has to say is bunk because there's no reason to interject an overly-elaborate explanation for a naturally occuring phenomena. Well, guess what. Chromosomes do fuse in nature. It's not uncommon, and it is not unique to humans.

For example, take the case of the Maderian Mice, who over the course of 500 years have dropped over a quarter of their chromosomes via fusion.

Britton-Davidian collected hundreds of mice from about 40 locations around the island and found six distinct populations. The common brown house mouse of Europe, presumably the ancestor of the Madeira mice, has 40 chromosomes, but the six families of Madeiran mice have between 22 and 30.

The current families of Madeiran mice are not short of genetic material. They have not lost any DNA. What happened is this: over time, some of the chromosomes fused together, packing more DNA into some chromosomes.

Unless, of course, the Annunaki came with the Portuguese to the island and genetically altered the mice for their devious purposes as well.

Edit: Also, I have to ask... what Sumerian text... what physical sample... what ANYTHING out there does this guy have to support the claim that the Annunaki had 46 Chromosomes? He says they must have them... why? Because we have 46, and that's the only way he can get his theory to work? So he's already making the presumption that we are genetically altered by them, and then twisting the evidence afterwards to make the false statement that the Annunaki have 46 Chromosomes and thus proving the connection.

This is a classic case of circular reasoning. How do we know we are created by the Annunaki? Because we have 46 Chromosomes just like them. How do we know they have 46 Chromosomes? Because the only way the genetics work is to reduce us to 46 Chromosomes!

Rubbish.

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by daz__

The idea that the building blocks of life can be assembled into life, complete with a metabolism and reproductive capability, with nothing more than random, undirected, mechanismless energy is absurd.

Your right in that Abiogenes could never have created complex nucleic cells with metabolism. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been able to create the first life, only that it would have been extremely simple. And it most likely was, with the leading hypothesis now being that the first life was simply self-replicating RNA polymers which formed inside phospholipid mycelles near hydrothermal vents and once structured - could no longer escape the lipid bilayer.

Undirected? Mechanismless? Are we back to calling chemistry alchemy, and assume it cannot be done with out intelligent manipulation? Random? You think chemistry is random?

Do you think that Self-Oranization and Emergence are completely bunk theories as well? Because, you know, there's literally thousands of examples out there to prove you wrong on this ranging from flock dynamics, to crystallization, to the stock markets. So why can this phenomena not apply to life as well?

Another example, a bit closer to the point: Molecular Self-Assembly

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by daz__

 

The idea that the building blocks of life can be assembled into life, complete with a metabolism and reproductive capability, with nothing more than random, undirected, mechanismless energy is absurd.

Your right in that Abiogenes could never have created complex nucleic cells with metabolism. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been able to create the first life, only that it would have been extremely simple. And it most likely was, with the leading hypothesis now being that the first life was simply self-replicating RNA polymers which formed inside phospholipid mycelles near hydrothermal vents and once structured - could no longer escape the lipid bilayer.

Show me. That's the problem with the theories surrounding evolution; there are too many baseless extrapolations. What other series of chemical reactions do you believe happen without being able to demonstrate them in the lab?

Undirected? Mechanismless? Are we back to calling chemistry alchemy, and assume it cannot be done with out intelligent manipulation? Random? You think chemistry is random?

The energy involved (sunlight, lightning, wind, etc.) was random/undirected/mechanismless. That chemistry is predictable doesn't change that fact. The building blocks for anything have predictable properties, but when we want a machine more complex than e.g., a lever or an inclined plane, we have to build one, regardless of what the stock market or crystals are doing.

Note that there is no "standard model" for abiogenesis. Most evolutionists avoid the subject like the plague, preferring the pass the buck to an unnamed someone else, claiming it is a separate field and irrelevant to their theories. You can't blame them really, given that it is such an absurd concept which can't be demonstrated, and for which no "standard model" exists.

Originally posted by daz__
this next piece i would like to iquire of you if you think this may be a reason for 4000 genetic defects supposed to be contained within the human gene stystem.
daz__

Possibly. Evolution inevitably results in a loss of information over time, and genetic defects are a loss/corruption of DNA information. Mutations are rarely beneficial, and even when they are, they still are a loss of information. Given the rarity of beneficial mutations, combined with the commonness of mutations in general, the overall effect over time is not only a loss of information, but a degradation of the system as well.

Fortunately, there are a near infinite number of viable systems that can arise from the original, that even though they are a degraded system, or a "slice" of the system, they still function well enough to have a reasonable lifespan in their environment. The various breeds of domestic dogs compared to the wolf is a great example of this. Each breed of dog represents a slice of the pie, the pie being the wolf. Some of them represent a larger slice of the pie than others, for example, an Alaskan Malamute vs. a Chihuahua.

Now something like a Chihuahua is not new, it was always a potential of the existing information in the wolf's gene pool; natural selection would be unlikely to ever chisel out a Chihuahua though. With artifical selection and enough time, humans guiding the selection process (artificial selection) can come up with some pretty ridiculous critters.

If you were to allow all known breeds of domestic dogs to breed together for a long enough time, eventually you would get a mutt that is pretty close to the original wolf—putting the "pie" back together so to speak; but perhaps missing a few crumbs.



[edit on 8/28/2008 by MaximRecoil]

reply to post by KaginD


I also did my thesis in the early 80s on Chromosomes but I was more into XYY syndrome at the time and back them to prove or disprove the link to violence that back then was associated with that particular syndrome.

I see that you have plenty of good answers to your question so I have nothing more to add.

Is many other syndromes associated with Chromosomal aberrations they all show how we humans are not so perfect when it comes to laws of nature.

Good luck on your research.

reply to post by MaximRecoil

Show me.

Peptide Bond formation by in vitro Selection

RNA enzymes with two small-molecule substrates

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension

As for the "energy required" (an inaccurate term as you don't need outside energy to form chemical bonds or reactions - see: Sodium and Water), the first life probably formed around the convection currents of underwater hydrothermal vents where lipids naturally form. When the lipid is close to the heat source, the chemical compounds in the RNA cannot hold together, breaking apart into individual molecules and allowing them to enter into the bilayer. When the heat of the hydrothermal vent moves the water farther away from the heat source, the temperature cools allowing for polymerization. Once polymerized, the chain of molecules could no longer escape the bilayer. As shown above, that chain is capable of self-replication.

Edit: Expanded now that I have more time.

That's the problem with the theories surrounding evolution; there are too many baseless extrapolations.

Give an example.

What other series of chemical reactions do you believe happen without being able to demonstrate them in the lab?

There's actually quite a few going on in your own body, specifically in your DNA and RNA. However, you make the faulty assumption that just because reproduction of a chemical reaction has thus far failed - that it's not possible. When at first you don't succeed, stop.. stop and never try again eh? We currently do not have a comprehensive understanding of a completely working Abiogenesis model, let alone be able to quickly and accurately simulate a process that may have taken over a billion years to complete. However, the evidence discovered up till now is promising.

The building blocks for anything have predictable properties, but when we want a machine more complex than e.g., a lever or an inclined plane, we have to build one, regardless of what the stock market or crystals are doing.

If you want a machine for a specific purpose, yes, you would have to build it. Emergence and Self-Organization do not operate on our whims to do what we desire. However we can learn and manipulate the simple rules guiding self-organization and use it to create machinery. For example, using what we understand of the self-organization properties of DNA we can guide it to self-organize into - not biological systems, but functional three dimensional structures and 2-dimensional objects such as self-folding DNA origami.

Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns

DNA Nanotechnology

This is a new field called Binanotechnology.

Self Oranization and Emergence are real phenomena. Self Organization and Emergence apply to chemistry. Life is Chemistry. I don't see where the possibility of simple life forms arising from this is so incomprehensible. Once the first basic life (if you could call it life, really, as it would more resemble a virus - except with a phospholipid shell rather than a protein shell) was around capable of reproduction (RNA and DNA both self replicate) with variation - then how does life on Earth seem so unlikely?

Note that there is no "standard model" for abiogenesis.

Correct. Abiogenesis is a blanket term for the study of how life first arose on Earth. It incorporates many different hypothesis, including RNA World hypothesis.

Most evolutionists avoid the subject like the plague, preferring the pass the buck to an unnamed someone else, claiming it is a separate field and irrelevant to their theories.

Abiogenesis is NOT a field of study within evolution. Just because you don't like that fact, doesn't mean that "Evolutionists" are skirting the issue. Call a red apple blue all you want, but that doesn't make "blue" the correct term for defining it's color.

You can't blame them really, given that it is such an absurd concept which can't be demonstrated, and for which no "standard model" exists.

Perhaps you should ask someone who specializes in Abiogenesis. There's a lot of hypothesis and theories in science which have competition over explaining particular phenomena. That doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist.

We still don't have a comprehensive theory of everything either... but does that mean one doesn't exist? That physicists who search for it are in pursuit of an absurd theory?

[edit on 28-8-2008 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by KaginD
okay, I just joined last week, so I would not have seen your 1millionth two hundred and 33rd thousand other posts...thanks for the input though.

On behalf of everyone past 4th grade, you are welcome.

Thanks for the Straw Man.

Originally posted by KaginD
You guys are unbelievable!! I joined this site because I enjoy reading everyones opinions and I thought it would be a good thing to be a part of. You have made it clear that you are not welcoming of new members nor do you have any intentions on doing so. Its a shame, because I thought this was a great site, but given the fact that you have been so rude, you have totally changed my opinion of the entire site. Thanks! You know, you would think that given the fact that this is a site for ideas that get scrutinized on normal web pages, that you would be a little more understanding.. I guess not. I'm deleting my account, so you won't have to worry about any "uneducated" opinions anymore.

WHEW!. That's 30 seconds a day I don't need to worry about getting back.