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.

 

Students Surprised to Find Noah's Ark Feasible

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

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?
edit on 5-3-2015 by np6888 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888
Since you skipped me I guess that means you don't have scriptural backing? I mean if there is some I really would like to see it..



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: np6888

IMO, dinosaurs are merely a combination of "different" large animals that were created during the 5th Yom(Eon?)

Do you mean to say dinosaurs are not real, and that paleontologists just throw random bones together? If not, can you elaborate?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

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:


Hence my statement being


even so, you are aware that in almost all cases, the combinations you allude to above result in sterile hybrids, yes?


I got a little ahead of myself and forgot to mention 'Haldane's Rule" : In animals whos sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the Hetrogametic sex. I.E. all the males will be sterile while a small percentage of females have a chance at reproducing successfully. Ligers in particular are susceptible embryonic fatality and premature death. It is a very small percentage that survive to adulthood at all. additionally, the offspring of hybrid Ligers have their own health isues to deal with and have a low likelihood of reaching adulthood.

Even so, your statement that this has been witnessed in the wild is untrue. The geographic/ecological niches of Lions(strictly African) and Tigers (strictly Asian) in no way overlap. All known hybrids of the Genus Panthera are from zoos or captivity.



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.


Why do you think that? All 41 felids today share common ancestry going back ~ 55 MA As demonstrated by the hybrids already discussed, they do not have an aversion to mating with one another, the only barrier to their mating is geography and millions of years of isolation and genetic drift.



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.


It's getting late so here is some light reading for you- scienceblogs.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


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.


I wasn't the one claiming that altering the number of chromosomes meant a separate species, that was your claim. I was simply giving an example of people born with Trisomy-21 and asked you if they were then a different species? and not all of the poffspring are going to have a normal chromosomal count. Some will have 47. I was just giving the percentages and demonstrating that they had a better than even chance of having a normal offspring.


Also, where's your evidence that the blonde hair blue eyes genes evolved 5-10,000 years ago?



OCA2(blue eyes)
www.sciencedaily.com...

www.livescience.com...

KITLG(Blonde Hair)
www.livescience.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

I may have misspoke on the time frame for blonde hair as unlike the mutation for blue eyes, it didn't appear once and descend through the population, it evolved independently several times in different populations in different areas of the globe. It's a different gene that codes for it in Europeans and the 5-10% of natives of the Solomon Islands for example. But in Europeans, it appears approximately 10-11KYA

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   

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.


I am the product of both a creep and a jerk.




posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I already know that OCA2 is the trait for blue eyes, and I've seen the first link. Those are just claims and explanations of the traits, not evidence of the date of origin. 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.
edit on 6-3-2015 by np6888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
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.

www.ancient-origins.net...
edit on 6-3-2015 by np6888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder

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 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.

You should not let your ignorance over religion cloud your ignorance over history and geology.


I'm not having problems with any history. I just don't believe ancient texts without objective evidence backing their claims up. YOU are inventing narratives when no geologic evidence exists to back your claims. Yes, a bunch of cultures had flood myths, but that doesn't mean that they were all talking about the SAME flood, even if the stories are similar. If the geologic evidence says it didn't happen, then you are wrong. It's really that simple. Again the ground doesn't lie. Humans do.
edit on 6-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Here's the problem with the traditional theory of evolution: it doesn't explain how a trait can evolve in one individual and spread among so many. If you can imagine how the blue eyes gene evolved and how people behaved back then, then chances are either he would have been killed, or if he survived, the frequency would not be nearly as high as today. If let's say, there were only 100,000 Cro-Magnon/Neanderthals hybrids back then, then this trait evolved, then logically, the ratio would only be 1 to 100,000 blue eyes to brown eyes today, assuming that everyone lived in peace.

Another theory is that Neanderthals had blue eyes, and got conquered. However, Neanderthals died out 35,000 years ago, and there's no evidence that the blue eye genes go back that far, and I think the frequency of blonde hair blue eyes is still much too high relative to how much Neanderthal DNA that we have. In addition, we don't see it in Asians, who also have Neanderthal DNA, and then you have to explain how the Neanderthals managed to obtain that blue eyes trait from their ancestors, without getting killed or drowned out. Then if you keep going back, you have to conclude that the apes needed to have had blue eyes right from the start(assuming that you still believe in the traditional theory of evolution), and then you have to wonder how those apes managed to survive without being killed by their clans or brothers.

How then, can a trait like blue eyes ever spread, with the frequency as it is? The only possible explanation is that the trait must have come from one single ancestor of all ancestors, right from the start, along with only a few other ancestors of all ancestors, right from the start. The only story that fits, and it fits perfectly, is that it must have come from Japheth, and the dark hair and eyes came from his wife, and the other two brothers and their wives.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: np6888
Interesting, this triceratop was dated to only 33,500 years old.


Anyone who says that they used accepted scientific methods in dating any dinosaur remains, and came back with a date of 33,500 years, is lying, and probably isn't even really a scientist.

Imagine my surprise in finding out that this date was given by the "Paleochronology Group", which is composed almost exclusively of outspoken creationists, more than one of which have been fired from university positions because of academic fraud.
edit on 3/6/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   

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.


Then you're not following along. OCA2 is the gene responsible for pigmentation. It's a mutation on OCA2 that codes for blue eyes.


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.

link.springer.com...


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.


Then demonstrate that it is so. Saying it is possible isn't evidence of such. There has been a great deal of full coverage sequencing done in the last decade to support not just when, but WHERE this mutation on OCA2 first occurred.


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.


I did read the comments. All that it implies is that today, in that region, you see a predominantly light skin, light eye phenotype whereas 4KYA that wasn't going to be the case. As the mutation on OCA2 first appeared in the ME, it wasn't going to show up as the most prominent phenotype overnight, it took many, many generations for a recessive trait to become the predominant norm in that geographical region. The implication you wish to ascribe to these results is not what the research actually found or describes. you are attempting to ascribe a shapshot of a microcosm upon a large scale temporal and geographic depiction.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   

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.


and what basis do you have for altering nearly 2 centuries of peer reviewed data other than its a cozier fit for your personal proclivities?


Interesting, this triceratop was dated to only 33,500 years old.


even more interesting is that this "data" has not been peer reviewed. In addition to that, the "Paleo Chronology Group" who claims to have done the testing states on their site that all labs doing radiocarbon dating report their information in the "Radiocarbon journal" where it is compiled. The Radiocarbon journal has no submissions from the Paleochronology group nor does the Paleochronology group say they've submitted any C-14 testing at all to the Radiocarbon journal.

This doesn't even begin to touch on the subject of why anyone would use 14c on a fossil period? you can NOT obtain 14c data from inorganic remains, which is what a fossil is. The would not have been aware of the alleged collagen until the lab broke the samples down for testing and no reputable lab would accept a fossil for 14c testing. The whole thing smells rotten.

There's no way in hell any paleontologist used 14c as their first method of dating something and there would have been reference to the massive dissonance between the geochronology and the 14c dates derived. This would have been MASSIVE news in evolutionary biology the world over.



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,


this in no way demonstrates what you claim it does. All it demonstrates is the shadiness of those who bend over backwards trying to prove evolutionary science is, at best, imprecise.


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.

how exactly does this demonstrate the inefficiency of 14c dating? and where does the 4000 vs 6000 year strawman come from? It's very imaginative and makes for great Sci-Fi but has no basis in reality.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
This is the first thing you read when you look at the 'Paleochronology Group's' website:


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.

Need I say more?
edit on 3/6/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
The more I read into this 'Paleochronogy Group', the more I wonder what sort of ridiculously ignorant nincompoops actually buy into any of their idiocy.


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.

I could go on and on. If this were satire, it would be brilliant. The fact that it isn't is terrifying.

Edit: It just keeps getting better! In between the countless misspellings and grammatical errors, they also talk about how prevalent dinosaur blood is, how dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, "mummified wood", how they've found dinosaur bones that weren't fossilized...Holy crap, I haven't laughed like this in a while....

Edit 2: They say they've dated hadrosaur remains to 1,950 years old. 1,950....It's a wonder these folks are even able to feed themselves.
edit on 3/6/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

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?
edit on Ram30615v402015u41 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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.


Yes, I know what it is called. I was using "barrier" as a descriptor for the thing not trying to call it KT barrier. Don't play these trivial semantics games with me.


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?


Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

What their belief is doesn't matter. They tested using a different method, submitted to other scientists. I think their conclusion is little off. I think what it shows is that the dinosaurs didn't die as early as people thought.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

the Bible
tells us happened a whole world ago.

A whole world ago. What does that even mean? Post the verse. What does the Bible say as to when it occurred?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

What are you talking about? I never said that dinosaurs didn't exist. I merely said that they were basically just very large species of animals that were given the name dinosaurs to describe them.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join