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.
originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar
That's not true, a female liger can mate. Also, mating between two different species has been observed in the wild:
even so, you are aware that in almost all cases, the combinations you allude to above result in sterile hybrids, yes?
I think overtime, the features of the lion evolved(into tigers or leopards?) such that they become "racist," i.e they appear different to each other that they no longer want to mate with each other.
However, I was wrong when I said two different species with different chromosomes number can't mate. A horse and donkey can mate with each other, for example. However, it appears from your example and the mule that, if the offspring has a different # of chromosomes from the parents, then it's either sterile or has a genetic defect, so what we really need to show is whether a mutation of a change in chromosomes number can be both non-sterile and beneficial.
Another note regarding your example of people with Down Syndrome having a chance to have a normal baby, the baby still "reverts" back to 46 chromosomes, so no permanent speciation, aka macro-evolution has occurred.
Also, where's your evidence that the blonde hair blue eyes genes evolved 5-10,000 years ago?
originally posted by: peter vlar
I don't think there is any argument for the validity of punctuated equilibrium, at least amongst evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and paleontologists.
originally posted by: Shadow Herder
You seemed like a trouble person, I see that you are anti-religion and christ, and now are having a difficult time having a discussion about history because the bible does have factual historical events and places. How can that be?.... as your mind smokes.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs
Then where is the evidence? What did god do with it, and why is it hidden?
You should not let your ignorance over religion cloud your ignorance over history and geology.
originally posted by: np6888
Interesting, this triceratop was dated to only 33,500 years old.
originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar
I already know that OCA2 is the trait for blue eyes, and I've seen the first link.
link.springer.com...
The research was published in the Journal of Human Genetics. A mutation in a gene called OCA2 came into being nearly 8,000 years ago. It can be definitively traced back to an ancestor from the Black Sea.
Dr. Hans Eiberg claims that before this time, every human being had brown eyes. “A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a ‘switch,’ which literally ‘turned off’ the ability to produce brown eyes,” Eiberg said.
When blue-eyed peoples from Jordan, Denmark and Turkey were examined, their genetic difference was traced back to the maternal lineage according to Eiberg’s team.
The brown melanin pigment is still dominant. However, following the last Ice Age, Europeans developed this rare mutation that differentiated them from the rest of the human race.
Ninety-five percent of Europeans in Scandinavian countries have blue eyes. They are also found to have a greater range of hair and skin color.
Comparatively, Europe has a wider variety of hair color and skin pigment than is found in any other continent in the world. These mutations are recent as Europe was colonized only a few thousand years ago, say mainstream scientists.
Also, note that while Bronze Age Warrior is 4000 years old, it's possible that the blonde hair blue eyes genes are actually even more recent than that.
And it's not just one individual, if you've actually read the comments, you'll see that it was from a large sample from Ukraine and Russia.
originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
No, I meant they're just various class of very large animals and were given the name dinosaurs to describe them in general, for example, a triceratop = bigger version of rhinos, pterodactyls = big species of birds, etc.
Interesting, this triceratop was dated to only 33,500 years old.
While this doesn't prove that the Earth is 6000 years old, it shows that long-term methods of dating can be very imprecise, and possibly off by several factors,
and you can see that even carbon dating can be off by several thousand years, which when talking about 4000 years vs 6,000 is pretty significant.
DINOSAUR AGES CORRECTED BY CARBON DATING THEIR BONES
Most paleontologists, and others refuse to carbon date dinosaur bones. They dont want you to see it. But our Paleo team has Carbon 14 dated dinosaur bones from Texas, Colorado, Montana, China, North Dakota, and Alaska by professional labs using accelerator mass spectrometry. Every sample dates to between 23,000 and 39,000 years before the present.
We participated several international conferences in Italy and Germany concerning the impossibility of evolution.
For example, carbon 14 exists in coal, diamonds, amber, and dinosaur fossils and none should exist according to evolutionary theory.
I submit to you that nature only takes days or weeks to make petrified wood
In this the 21st century evolutionists are now trying to tell us that birds evolved from dinosaurs. As you see, there is something for everyone to be concerned about.
Most scientific dating is done by measuring the radiometric age of volcanic material adjacent to the fossil. The assumption being that the age of the volcanic material is the age of the fossil. This assumption may not always be true since the volcanic material could have been formed earlier and then moved into place to cover the fossil.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs
You apparently don't understand what you are talking about. If a barrier more recent than the KT barrier eroded across the world, then the KT barrier would be eroded as well. You aren't making any sense with your destruction of evidence hypothesis, because other evidence exists to say that you are wrong.
originally posted by: randyvs
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs
You apparently don't understand what you are talking about. If a barrier more recent than the KT barrier eroded across the world, then the KT barrier would be eroded as well. You aren't making any sense with your destruction of evidence hypothesis, because other evidence exists to say that you are wrong.
A quick google tells me that it's actually the KT boundary not " Barrier".
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
As I understand it, it's a world wide sedimentary deposit of iridium mostly
barried deep in the earth and/or covered by a solid layer of rock. And the
places on earth where it is found to be exposed could be evidence of the
flood.
You're asking for geological evidence of a world wide flood. And I fail to
see how this layer of sediment could be effected by the same erosion
required to negate evidence of a world wide flood that again, the Bible
tells us happened a whole world ago. Perhaps you can provide a list of
the geological evidences I should be looking for in regards to a world
wide flood. Surely if you can say there is no evidence you know what
evidence there should be? So lets start there shall we?