12 Ways Humans Are NOT Primates - Lloyd Pye

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by JScytale

 

Hehe , you can train a chimp to drive a scooter too, dosnt make him a human .
Like this sweedish zookeeper said this summer, he had found evidence of a monkey there showed signs of human ancestry, the Big News was that he thru rocks at the humans 'starring' at him.. That is a sure sing if intelligence .. I call it an reaction as too the monkey being tired of the people starring at him all day, nothing more, nothing less..

I take it you didn't read the article about wild orangutans spear fishing

and the chimp in the video is very obviously trained to water his little pool, but once inside is playing and very obviously having fun. you cannot train fun - this chimp is quite clearly not naturally afraid of water but instead thoroughly enjoys it. his owner / trainer probably picked up on this and taught him things like how to fill the pool.

also, i noticed something in your other posts. do you SERIOUSLY question evolution? its not only supremely well supported by evidence, but it makes predictions that are later demonstrated to be true. a great example is darwin's hawk moth.

lepcurious.livejournal.com...

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by ChemBreather


The same could be said of the chimps reactions to a large percentage of our own. We have no choice but to react to stimuli, yes we have greater cognitive abilities but we face the same environment. You're much more of a machine than you realize.

Originally posted by cnuum
reply to post by ChemBreather

 

So you countered Phage's observation by noting that your source is a paranormal website? Ok, way more reliable than Harvard's own information.

Also, that you don't like monkeys doesn't change it a bit that if we look at other animals (in terms of bones, blood and yes, DNA), we're most closely related to other apes, especially chimpanzee and bonobo. I'm not saying that I know we're not a product of alien genetic engineering, but one thing I wonder is why it took so long to engineer us. The things that set us apart from other apes, like big brains and advanced tool-using, started gradually with Homo erectus about 2 million years ago, and it was just 200,000 years ago when there started to be people around that were biologically like us.

Counter and counter, I had to correct the source, I didnt know it was so important with the Quotes and Ex tags.. But one learn as one go along..

Still not sure which I should use where...

But, the problem with the time on things, like as you point out, 'why it took so long to engeneer us', who said it took so long ? or if it happend fast?
There is allways different time tables on this.

But I think Pye is on the right track, he present slides and information to back up what he is saying, and if this is the first one hear of this 'theory' , ofcourse it makes no sense. It is that simple..

this goes also to the disclosure of ET you know, when US govt. disclose the Et presence on earth, what will the stand point be on this issue then?

I guess nothing will change, cause it will show 4 billion people believing some thing that is wrong, and that will not one single evo man do, simple as that..

When you take the Dna from an primate here on earth and mix it with the 'alien dna', to use that term, you will end up with an creature with primate dna, and you will end up with 'alien dna'..

For a primate to move the muscle mass from the Back to the Front in one single leap of evolution is not possible and without the link it cant be proven either, so it is no less an belief rather than sciense..

Anyone care to address the evidence from the 24th chromosome pair which shows common descent?

One question to the people who believe in evolution out of nothing: How did something so complex as DNA form? Are you sure there wasn't any type of intelligent design that went into it?

It's complicated, and a lot of smart people are working on it. DNA definitely didn't come out of nowhere. I think the most common theory is that it came from RNA, which in turn came from simpler organic molecules such as amino acids. But I'm no expert. The Wiki page is pretty good:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ChemBreather
For a primate to move the muscle mass from the Back to the Front in one single leap of evolution is not possible and without the link it cant be proven either, so it is no less an belief rather than sciense..

He was referring to hair, not muscle mass. And specifically referring to other modern apes, who we are not descended from.

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by ChemBreather
For a primate to move the muscle mass from the Back to the Front in one single leap of evolution is not possible and without the link it cant be proven either, so it is no less an belief rather than sciense..

He was referring to hair, not muscle mass. And specifically referring to other modern apes, who we are not descended from.

I say it again, if this clip is the First one hear of this man or theory, it will not make sense..

Ive seen hours and hours with this man, he even had the Guts to go on Fox news and say it flat out : ET came to earth and made adam and Eve as an Worker class/slave: adamu-pearl..

And to be that confident in ones work, I think deserves credit and not redicule, wich is what Evo is about, if you speak up against 'common knowledge' your an nut.. I thought that was back in the 80's, clearly humans arent evolving...

ChemBreather, the problem is that evolution is established science, with a good century of evidence supporting it. Mr. Pye, on the other hand, clearly doesn't know the first thing about biology. Being confident of nonsense isn't something to credit, it's ignorance. Isn't that what ATS is about? Denying ignorance?

I posted some good evidence for evolution with regard to the 24th chromosome, why don't we discuss that if we want to have a substantive discussion?

reply to post by ChemBreather



Fox news.
Trust me when I say that is far from the most outlandish and ridiculous claim ever made on Fox news. They make them on an hourly basis .

Confidence is meaningless, but scientific evidence speaks volumes. If you based your judgment on confidence, you'd fall for every con man to ever walk the face of the earth.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]

I checked out the entire series of vids and It is an interesting and compelling argument.
While I feel that his presentation skills are lacking, I believe that he is on the right path.
I also believe that there is more to this thing than we will ever know.

Originally posted by Omniskeptic
ChemBreather, the problem is that evolution is established science, with a good century of evidence supporting it. Mr. Pye, on the other hand, clearly doesn't know the first thing about biology. Being confident of nonsense isn't something to credit, it's ignorance. Isn't that what ATS is about? Denying ignorance?

I posted some good evidence for evolution with regard to the 24th chromosome, why don't we discuss that if we want to have a substantive discussion?

It's like talking to a wall.. It isnt established science, it is the only 'legal' theory of origine of humans.

there is no evidence linking Ape and man, yea yea.97.5% similarity, better be 100% before claiming that as an fact.
Since you know more than him, cant you correct him then. and provide some facts that it is wrong ?

What ignorance goes, believing blindly what you are told in an education system that is a part of an Downing of childrens IQ isnt what I call reliable source..just so you know...

reply to post by ChemBreather


it is very securely established science.
not only are successful scientific FIELDS based on it, but the amount of evidence supporting it approaches the amount of evidence supporting the theory of gravity. It is so tremendously reliable that it has correctly predicted the existence of specific intermediate forms, species, etc. That's right, scientists have noticed things like a specific flower that makes it impossible for any known animal to get at its nectar and pollen or an odd system present in a fossil, predicted the existence of an animal capable of reaching said nectar or an intermediate form towards said system, and years later having their prediction confirmed by the discovery of said animal or a fossil containing an intermediate form between the new system and its predecessor (such as the evolution of the whale's inner ear to be able to hear well underwater after having lived on land - we have clear fossil examples of a swimming mammal with legs and an ear designed for hearing in air, 5 examples of animals becoming more adept at swimming and having ears better designed to hear underwater, and of course modern whales).

news.nationalgeographic.com...
aigbusted.blogspot.com...

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by ChemBreather

there is no evidence linking Ape and man, yea yea.97.5% similarity, better be 100% before claiming that as an fact.

If there was 100% similarity, then humans and "apes" (by which I think you mean chimpanzees?) would be the same animal.

Since you know more than him, cant you correct him then. and provide some facts that it is wrong ?

Other people did a good job of rebutting his nonsense, especially JScytale. Basically, the presentation boiled down to "humans are not exactly the same as chimpanzees and other great apes, therefore they aren't related!" Most of them have quite simple answers.

I picked the last claim, about the chromosomes, to specifically address, since I prefer examining specific claims in detail rather than briefly addressing everything. That example alone shows that Mr. Pye knows nothing about genetics, since there is a very simple answer to his question. I would love to talk more about it, if you would like to respond to my earlier post.

If you prefer to talk about one of the other claims instead, let me know and I'll research it in more detail. I apologize, but I don't have the time to do an in-depth rebuttal of all twelve at once.

What ignorance goes, believing blindly what you are told in an education system that is a part of an Downing of childrens IQ isnt what I call reliable source..just so you know...

I was homeschooled my entire life, except for ninth grade, when I attended a creationist private high school. Everything I know about evolution comes from personal research, and I was even a creationist until somewhere around tenth grade. It is not something I believe blindly, but something that the overwhelming evidence has convinced me to believe.

Originally posted by JScytale
reply to post by ChemBreather

 

it is very securely established science.
not only are successful scientific FIELDS based on it, but the amount of evidence supporting it approaches the amount of evidence supporting the theory of gravity. It is so tremendously reliable that it has correctly predicted the existence of specific intermediate forms, species, etc. That's right, scientists have noticed things like a specific flower that makes it impossible for any known animal to get at its nectar and pollen or an odd system present in a fossil, predicted the existence of an animal capable of reaching said nectar or an intermediate form towards said system, and years later having their prediction confirmed by the discovery of said animal or a fossil containing an intermediate form between the new system and its predecessor (such as the evolution of the whale's inner ear to be able to hear well underwater after having lived on land - we have clear fossil examples of a swimming mammal with legs and an ear designed for hearing in air, 5 examples of animals becoming more adept at swimming and having ears better designed to hear underwater, and of course modern whales).

news.nationalgeographic.com...
aigbusted.blogspot.com...

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]

was this an serious reply ? It makes no sense, no sense at all.
Whales evolved from land animals and learned to swim ?
So this land animal had a floatation device for how many million years ?

Come on, this sounds like some one seeing funny colours, the land animal would have drowned long before it would be any whale, I promise.

You belive what you want ok , you never find any thing that will make me believe the species on earth goes from fish to pig to bear to whale. Never. Sorry .

reply to post by ChemBreather

Whales evolved from land animals and learned to swim ?
So this land animal had a floatation device for how many million years ?

Come on, this sounds like some one seeing funny colours, the land animal would have drowned long before it would be any whale, I promise.

Only if you believe that animals cannot live in the shallows... There are plenty of good reasons to be able to swim in water while still breathing air. The path went from fully land animals, to animals that hunted occasionally in the water, to animals that spent most of their time in the water, and finally to animals that lost the ability to go on land at all.

This site has a quick but good overview:

www.pbs.org...

You belive what you want ok , you never find any thing that will make me believe the species on earth goes from fish to pig to bear to whale. Never. Sorry .

In other words, you refuse to exhibit the same open-mindedness that you ask us to have?

Originally posted by ChemBreather & all of those who deny evolution as scientific fact

It's not about who you want to be... it's about who you are!

We have so much in common with primates... go and visit a zoo and see for yourself. Or do you prefer to just live in ignorance in your own world with this man.

I'm glad there are already a few here countering the many false arguments put forward by creationists and those who generally falsely assume evolution is a belief. Therefore I will just leave it to those people to continue their good work.

But I will say that some of the level of ignorance here is astounding. Ask yourself: what are you really arguing for when you don't have the evidence? Let the evidence speak for itself, as evidence for evolution does. For those with only conjecture - is the purpose of your life to argue for the sake of belief? Would you rather not just be happy accepting the truth and reality?

It's not like you can change it and make some fantastic dream come true because you wish it to be so!

It is kind of comforting to know that we don't really have much control, or that somebody doesn't have that control, and just to accept that is the case.

And that the universe or multiverses/megaverse will go on after us, as it did before us. And that in essence is what is significant, not that we go to heaven. This fear of death is an illusion because of self-centred attitudes which is part of narcissistic behaviour common to humans when you base your thinking on fear of the unknown.

Instead base your thinking on whatever the unknown is - it just is. We hope it will be good for us, but so many have lived through "hell" before so you won't be alone.

Evolution, natural selection, cosmological evolution, planetary evolution, stellar evolution.... are all more fascinating and amazing than anyone could have imagined centuries ago. I see no reason to disregard this for an ancient belief in god, that has no evidence to support it.

Just follow the scientific evidence, and the truth will follow you, followed by spiritual enlightenment which greatens every generation both from scientific knowledge and natural evolution.

Critical, logic and rational thinking are the only way to achieve this success. Proof can only be obtained by science, and the branch of science linked to proof in particular is Maths.

After all... apart from the blatently obvious ways of achieving happiness, truth has to also equal happiness.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by john124]

reply to post by ChemBreather


did you visit the links provided?
are you aware that we have fossils of animals rather obviously adapted to such a lifestyle?
are you aware that not a single biologist thinks that a species went "from fish to pig to bear to whale"? It is about common ancestors. Fish are an ENTIRELY different evolutionary branch from any mammal.

here are some graphics that might make the particular evolution of the whale easier to understand. bear in mind living in the open ocean is very different from hunting for food that lives underwater and living on the coast or shallow water.








an excellent analog to early whale ancestors is the crocodile, even though it is a reptile. its is very obviously an animal that breathes air and has legs. it spends the vast majority of its time mostly submerged and hunts animals on the shore, underwater, or who stray into the water.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by Omniskeptic

If there was 100% similarity, then humans and "apes" (by which I think you mean chimpanzees?) would be the same animal.

I dont think I mean chimp, since they are still here, they couldnt have evolved to humans.
What or when will the next type of 'ape' evolve to a new breed of 'humans' ? Let me Guess: it was a one time thing ?

Sitting here and thinking how only 2.5% difference between the two species, should'nt we have atleast ONE visible similarity ?

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by Omniskeptic

 

Sitting here and thinking how only 2.5% difference between the two species, should'nt we have atleast ONE visible similarity ?

have you EVER seen an ape, let alone interacted with one?

we are almost identical physically. the difference between the physical build of a chimpanzee and a human being is smaller than the difference between a camel and a llama (who are related).

we are so biologically similar that we can even recognize each other's facial expressions. apes can even laugh.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


Drawings ? I was expecting some visible undenialbe proof.. Tomorrow I draw You some pictures of how it is, and it is common knowledge and widly accepted among experts all over..

That was sacrasm, dont look so smart ? only shows I follow the common belief, you seriously dont have to convinve me of any thing.

Until some one shows me a polaroid of this animals, or fossils that without any doubt is not contaminated by its surroundings and accepted be experts on both sides of the fence, I will not waste my time on it..

If a seal is on land for 30 million years, what kind of animal will he be ?
im thinking he will die and Not evolve into any thing other than dirt.._D

reply to post by ChemBreather


you clicked two links didn't you. there are fossils linked there. the drawings are based on the skeletal structure of the animals in question. crocodiles should make the lifestyle of these animals PAINFULLY easy to understand.

these are also simply meant to make this easier to understand. the undeniable proof pretty much lies in the fact that WHALES HAVE TOES. there is no conceivable reason for an animal that evolved to live an entirely aquatic life to have toes except that it wasn't always an entirely aquatic animal. there is even less reason to believe that whales were designed or engineered to live in said environment and the designer decided to include toes for no reason whatsoever and conveniently left them out on every single fish in existence.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by JScytale]