Humans DID NOT come from Apes????

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by KaginD

 

Don't know much about what you posted, sorry your theory makes little sense to me I'm afraid but........I do know that if our ancient ancestors had 24 chromosomes and 2 joined together then that would leave 23, not 22.
Your understanding of elementary maths is staggering.
And you are studying for a thesis.
The education system where you are from must be appalling!

Sorry, no offence intended at all.

Wow, I wouldn't comment about a person's lack of education with grammar like that.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Why thank you WW! Yes, not only are the circumstances which preserve an organism unique, but also the circumstances which allow discovery of that fossil. Certain areas yield a rich reward of fossils, and scientists "mine" those areas.... but there must be millions of areas yet to be discovered. I remember as a child, at the age of 12, when we moved to Utah, nearly everyone in the area had a dinosaur footprint on their doorstep. It was made of coal, and pulled from the coal mines. Vernal Utah, and Duchesne are still very rich in fossil records.

Put together, our fossil record paints a picture. Divergent species -- as you said -- adaptation, selection, and creatures changed. Not all of the changes are recorded in WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND. I capitalized that, because I think it's important. A slim circumstance causes a creature to be fossilized. An even more slim circumstance causes us to find that fossil. Many intermediary species have been categorized, but many of them have to be extropolated, in that the precurser is known, and the outcome is known, but the intermediary creature has not been [yet] found in the fossil record.

I personallly believe that Homo Habillis was around MUCH longer ago than currently accepted. I think there is evidence to support the idea that proto-humans were evolved on the Earth toward the end of the reign of dinosaurs. I don't doubt at all that the extinction event that closed the door on the dinosaurs provided a natural selection event for surviving proto-humans to evolve to the next step. I think it's possible we would be far less advanced than we are, had this extinction event not happened.

Kismet.

Originally posted by Twilly
Not to turn this into a evil-otion thread, But what happens to an animal's body today when it dies? Rots? Is picked clean by other animals and insects? The bones are even eaten... So how do we keep finding these fossils?

In order for us to find dead animals in such good condition, bones and sometimes flesh intact, The animals had to have been buried alive...

So try this one on for size, how about if they drowned and then were buried alive? Maybe by a Global flood?

I seem to recall that the Bible talks about a Global Flood, And I think it also talks about where Humans came from...

Do you believe George Washington really lived? How do you know? Did you ever meet him? Nope, just read stories about him, Right?

Then why do you have so many problems believing the stories in the Bible?

Science continues to prove the Bible correct, Yet you still won't believe?????

Actually no they don't need to be buried alive but it has happened. For example, if an asteroid were to impact a planet...let's call it earth...and that asteroid were of sufficient size, it could wipe out most of life on earth and said life may be fossilized after death.

There is no evidence to suggest that a global flood has ever occured.

reply to post by argentus


Well argent....I will politely quibble with only one part of your post....that about Homo Habilus, and the time frame regarding the proximity, in scale, to the dinosaurs.

I thik it's pretty well been established that ape-like hominids were NO WHERE near the realm of the big reptiles. Came about much, much later.

cheers!

reply to post by jfj123


This is another good point. The fossil record suggests that there have been world-wide catastrophes that killed up to 50% or more (up to 80% in some cases) of all life on Earth. However, these mass extinction events have occurred several times in Earth's history and not all at once. Further we know they weren't caused by floods because some of them predate land animals, or involve the mass extinction of oceanic species. Further, some of them can be traced to meteorite impacts as evident by the layer of Iridium in the strata that corresponds to the estimated age of certain craters. The extinction that ended the reign of the Dinosaurs is an example of this.

There isn't evidence of a mass extinction as recently as 6,000 years ago due to a global flood, however.

Further, consider that if Noah only saved two of each species, then we should be seeing the effects of such a population bottleneck across all species today - regardless of whether or they would be different "kinds". For example, consider the Cheetah:

The puzzle of the cheetah goes much deeper. They appear to be what you might expect of a cross between a cat and a dog. You can research that.

Yes, there was a cataclysm on Earth about 10,500 - 12,000 years ago.
Noah's flood story is a very mild version of what happened. All he and his family experienced was rain and rising water. Other cultures have other tales of a far worse scenario.

Together they tell of a world wide conflagration, falls of huge globs of water, gravel, rocks, dust, mud.... Volcanos went off one after the other.
There was darkness such as they could not tell night from day. Earth oozed magma, and various other that is underground. There were mega hurricanes. The ground swelled and the Earth split - mountains were raised while other lands dropped. The whole face of the Earth changed.
Waters were sloshed about in mountainous waves.

There are caves and "drift" deposits in which there are skeletons of many species of animals. The skeletons are broken and pieces scattered and mixed with that of other species. These are found all over the world and those in mountains or hills are always on the NW side.

This changing face of the Earth makes it impossible to depend on dating via counting strata.

None of the folowing says anything about humans descending from apes or vice versa. And why shouldn't it have been the other way round?

what happened 12000 years ago?

Here is one recap

And there is lots of info here

reply to post by ghofer


Grammar does not detract from the content of an arguement.
Not being able to subtract 1 from 24 correctly when offered as evidence for a theory detracts from the content.

I have never posted my educational qualifications on ATS.
The OP did.
I have never studied for a degree.
The OP is.

No offence to the OP was intended, which I stated, but the maths offered was central to his arguement, and was incorrect.

Oh, the education system here in the UK is indeed appalling.

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.

Haha! So, because two people disagree with you, or actually prove you wrong, you scarper in a hissy fit?

Oh well, if that's the way you treat debate and learning then you would be better off elsewhere and we would be better off without you.

If you would actually like to keep your ego in check and join this debate that you started, I am certain we would be more than happy to have you here.

If you have been reading this forum for as long as you say, with the firm conclusion that we are all friendly people, it would be absurd to have your opinion so drastically changed after two replies (that weren't rude anyway).

the problem of the evolution theory is that the DNA is too complex for being evoleved here on earth,in a very short time , and in fact accordingly to the new discoveries the dna seems to be oming from outter space:google @ comet wild 2.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by MaximRecoil

 

First, define what you consider "information". Do you mean Chromosomes? Genes? Codons? Base Pairs? Do you know what "Information" is?

Look it up. I didn't invent the word nor the definition, neither is the definition a closely guarded secret for which only I hold the key.

As an example, the following as a whole is not information:

"sbdsbvdsdsgfdqppytzdkfhqpsck"

The following as a whole is information:

"Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water."

Secondly, evolution would not result in a loss of "information", whatever you claim to define it as.

Of course it can. Bottlenecks and mutations are two concrete examples of a loss of information.

Actually, the vast majority of mutations are negligible. [snip]

If it truly is "junk" DNA, then it is not added information, no more than typing a bunch of random letters at the end of an essay is added information.

The rarity in this case is the Puffer-Fish, which has almost no junk DNA.

And you don't see the contradiction with your previous paragraph here?

BTW, about so-called "junk DNA"; because you don't know what it is or what it is for does not necessarily mean it is "junk".

IIRC, Chihuahua's have the same amount of "genetic information" as Wolves.

No, they do not. They have been subjected to artifically imposed and guided bottlenecks, as have all breeds of domestic dogs.

However, new studies suggest that domesticated dogs are generally more intelligent than wolves, [snip]

Go ahead and reread my previous posts. Looks specifically for the word "specialization" (or a variant of it). Certain traits can be selected for without adding information, because the information was already there. For example, some people are far more intelligent than others. That trait could be selected for and eventually, humanity as a whole would be more intelligent than it was previously. You haven't added information, you have simply separated the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

The same goes for other specialized traits in certain dogs, such as the speed of the greyhound, or the nose of a bloodhound.

Btw: Which wolf are you referring to as the "wolf"? The Arctic Wolf? Grey Wolf? Timber Wolf? Dire Wolf? Steppe Wolf? The Dingo?

Whatever wolves were around when "dogs" started to separate from them. That should be obvious.

Breeding all the dog breeds in the world together will not create a wolf.

Straw man alert.

It will create a new breed of dog that has the mixed features at some level or another of all the dog breeds used.

Yes, 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. Hmm, that text looks sort of familiar; almost like I've typed it before.

Seriously. Go to any professional dog breeder in the world and tell them your hypothesis. They'll laugh at you.

This is a meaningless statement. For one thing, you are basing it on your straw man, and for another thing, I seriously doubt you have a functional crystal ball to make such predictions.

BTW, I could direct you to any number of people who would laugh at your straw man; myself included.

It all comes down to "show me". There are organisms with a short enough of a lifespan and given human intelligence guiding the selection process; some mind blowing results should be able to be shown in a short amount of time. Let's see it.

reply to post by KaginD
Read William Bramley's Book, "The Gods of Eden".

Monumental read.

Bramley wrote this book in 1993. It took him seven years of research, and he started out writing about mankind and war and ended up with this book.

One of the top three books I have read that changed my thinking.

According to science we did not come from the ape but do share a common ancestor.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by MaximRecoil

Look it up. I didn't invent the word nor the definition, neither is the definition a closely guarded secret for which only I hold the key.

Then it should be easy enough for you tell me exactly what "information" is. I want to know whether or not YOU even know what it is. Which is pretty important if you plan to argue a point based on increasing or decreasing "information".

I can give you a definition of a codon, a base pair, a genome, a chromosome, ect. And I will, if you wish, even if the information is widely available on the internet with just a casual search. Even if I didn't invent those terms, I still understand what they mean and how they apply to each other and to the study of genetics.

Now I'm asking you. Do YOU even know what "information" is?

As an example, the following as a whole is not information: "sbdsbvdsdsgfdqppytzdkfhqpsck" The following as a whole is information: "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water."

The line of gibberish above is still information. Perhaps junk information, but it is still information. In a computer, it still takes up memory storage or hard drive space. On a piece of paper, it would still take up space. The only thing that makes it "meaningful information" or "meaningless information" is the importance the reader puts on it. If you assign that string of letters to a concept, object, person, emotion, etc - then it no longer becomes meaningless.

For example, to an English speaker, the following line would be "meaningless information": Taku wakan ecetkiya hounkiciciya po!
Mitakuye ob takuni itokeca kte šni. However, to someone who that particular configuration of letters mean something - it would be meaningful information.

So your analogy fails, on this point alone. And I haven't even gotten into encryption such as... say... AUGACGGAGCUUCGGAGCUAG.

Further:

Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence.



Also - if you deny that "genetic information" can be added, then you must deny the existence of viruses. After all, it's the endrogenous retroviruses which have injected their own genetic code (which never activated for some reason) into ours that allows us to trace not only humans and other apes to a common ancestor, but can trace the footsteps of humanity out of Africa. Indeed, we have found at least 30,000 retrovirual markers in our own DNA. So that's at least 30,000 segments of "added information" which are now subject to mutation.

Of course it can. Bottlenecks and mutations are two concrete examples of a loss of information.

No. As already stated, mutation and other factors can add "information". Bottlenecks do not reduce the size of the Genome, only the amount of variability across a species as a whole.

If it truly is "junk" DNA, then it is not added information, no more than typing a bunch of random letters at the end of an essay is added information.

No, it's merely inactivated. It can still have a purpose, under the right conditions. For example, the activation and deactivation of portions of the genome can lead to traits that skip a generation - be they related to traits, genetic disorders, cancer, or Atavisms such as tails, extreme hairyness, oversized teeth, etc.

And you don't see the contradiction with your previous paragraph here?

Not at all.

Diversity of retrotransposable elements in compact pufferfish genomes

BTW, about so-called "junk DNA"; because you don't know what it is or what it is for does not necessarily mean it is "junk".

As said, we've successfully removed nearly all of the "junk DNA" from mice in the lab and we found that it had no deleterious side effects.

Linkey linkey

Whatever wolves were around when "dogs" started to separate from them. That should be obvious.

All of those species of wolf were around when dogs became domesticated. However, if you had done an iota of research, you'd know it was the Grey Wolf was the one which most likely was the ancestor of domesticated dogs.

No, they do not. They have been subjected to artifically imposed and guided bottlenecks, as have all breeds of domestic dogs.

I don't think you know the definition of the terms you're using. Regardless, dogs and wolves have the same amount of "genetic information", as evident by their ability to cross breed. This is because the genetic differences between wolves and the various breeds of dog are very small, allowing for reproduction of non-sterile offspring. This is why dogs are considered a sub-species of wolves. Just as humans are now classified as a sub-species of Homo Sapiens. They are Canis Lupis Familiaris, as we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I think you really need to study up on the canine genome before you start making claims using them as an example.

The Canine Genome

Certain traits can be selected for without adding information, because the information was already there. For example, some people are far more intelligent than others. That trait could be selected for and eventually, humanity as a whole would be more intelligent than it was previously. You haven't added information, you have simply separated the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

This is internally inconsistent with your previous statements, specifically the pie chart comparison. By your argument, if a wolf has only a certain potential for a specific trait - then it's offspring cannot exceed that potential. Unless you consider genetic "information" some sort of moldable and mailable concept that can change "information" for height into "information" for speed or olfactory prowess.

The example in humans would not produce smarter people, but would just bring up the average population intelligence to it's maximum "potential".

Wow, I come back like a week later and I still see MaximRecoil still trying to argue his views! Amazing!

I don't know where you learned your phylogenomics. Must have been from breeding your precious dogs all your life, but the dude your arguing with actually knows what he's talking about. Maybe you just like to argue. Good job on not letting someone change your beliefs, but stubborness isn't the way to go when it comes to knowledge.

But if you wouldn't have argued, he wouldn't have spouted out all that useful information. Maybe there is a good thing in competition of the mind.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by alundaio]

dude ur retarted because if two become then 23 not 22 nice math

If you ask me we were engineered from primates and another species !

Originally posted by the_watcher
Despite what I have said in another thread... evolution is a lie.

Humans were created by God, almost as they are today. We have many different "races" because we've all adapted to our own environments.

So yeah, sorry to busrt your bubble on the whole evolution thing. Never happend.

Just one teeny weeny little question I have:

What about the dinosaurs?

And ye olde "God put dinosaurs here to test Man" will not cut it with me I'm afraid.

I thought we humans came from adam & eve ......

Originally posted by special
I thought we humans came from adam & eve

......

That's one version of the story.

Personally, if I have to go with the one I like, it's the Orok creation story:

The traditional creation narrative of the Orok people of Sakhalin begins with three suns shining in the sky. The earth was completely liquid, but the liquid was slowly diminishing and the earth was hardening. Under the heat, cliffs and stones boiled. At that time, on earth there were no living creatures except the family of a man named Hadau. When the earth hardened, Hadau shot arrows at two suns first killing the older sister sun with one arrow, and then the younger sister sun with another leaving only the middle sun. Sundogs are said to be the visible shadows of the two earlier suns, as if imprints of one on each side. After this, Hadau created a family of eagles and a family of ravens. Therefore upon seeing an eagle on a hunt, the Oroks call him their elder (grandfather). The flight of these birds allowed people to be dispersed across the Earth.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think the OP has gone! Now that’s a pity ATS shouldn’t lose members like that.

Anyhow moving on, you may like to check out this chart it’s a detailed pdf listing DNA connections to mammals on earth.


www.abc.net.au...

MJ2

I'll admit I'm a little bit late to this 'party', and this discussion.

Too bad the OP has bolted....I'd hate to see any member feel intimidated by the truth.

Great to see all of the intelligent discussions that have gone forth on this issue. It's what makes ATS great!!!!

Just to state MY opinion....of COURSE Humans did not evolve from apes!! It is very obvious that, at some point in the past, we shared a common ancestor.

Evolution is not linear, it branches....like a tree....AND, just like a tree, branches can die off.

The ability to understand this complexity, and to escape from any outside influences, such as 'religion' that may color your ability to understand is important. To put it another way, use yor mind!!