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.

 

Renowned genetics expert claims to have found proof on Adam and Eve existence

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

edit on 1-8-2015 by KesleyJ because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: KesleyJ
It took intelligence to create Android, iPod, and iPad. Scientist say no intelligence created humans, a thinking life form which is much more complicated than a phone.


You really think that its an accurate analogy to compare an iphone or a tablet that took what... a half a century to scale down the first computers down to what we use in our smart tech versus 4.52 billion years of natural physiological and biochemical processes and believe there is an equity in that comparison? Or do you ascribe to the same Young Earth Creationism that the Molecular Geneticist in the OP and the Earth is only 6000 years old despite having cultures going back much farther as well as millions of years of documented hominid evolution? Please... don't stop there, keep going and give us your views on WHY the science is wrong. Tell us WHY the DNA is conclusively linked to the biblical Adam and Eve 4KA BP and why all of the other geneticists on Earth completely disagree with the good Dr. Purdom. I'm genuinely interested to better understand your take on this and why all of the science from multiple disciplines is not just wrong but in cahoots to craft this world wide multidisciplinary conspiracy to fool a very small minority, a very VOCAL, but still infinitesimal minority of the 2.1 or so Christians on earth.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Frocharocha


The main problem with the bible standarts it's that it doesn't account the genetic variation. People probably didn't know back then, but incest can lead to abort or genetic deformation. So either adam and eve was packed with a mysterious cocktail of DNA, or i'm more inclined to believe there was more than a single human around back then.

Anyway, the reason we share the same dna with most creatures on earth can be seen on the similarities with the living beings. At a certain point, a single organism (belived to came from Sarcopterygii) survived and from them almost all living animals became tetrapods (two arms and two legs, or four legs.) The same can be applied to most fish.


There are lots of problems with the bible and this woman is lying: humankind could not have been created by a woman and her three sons. I believe in genetic Adam and Eve, because it's proven by DNA. I also believe we share our DNA with every single creature on this planet because we all come from one same single celled organism. Then evolution worked its 'magic'.




edit on 1-8-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2015 by Agartha because: Spelling!!!



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Frocharocha
But the Bible's language is clear that Adam and Eve were real people. Their historical existence and fall into sin are foundational to the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Don't most Christians claim Adam and Eve, Creation and other bible stories, they selectively pick, are mere allegories anyway?

They say something like "I was taught evolution in class by nuns and no had a problem with it". This allows them to believe that any and all ideas are always in harmony with cuurent scientific advancement and thus avoid any cognitive dissonance.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Beside the Bible there is another explanation to where man may have come from.

Scientific proof human race was created by aliens 2013

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com...

Annunaki: Creation of Humans

www.theancientaliens.com...#!creation-of-humans/c1z1i


The texts chronical the Anuna’s genetic experimentations as they engineered the first humans. The texts write about six attempts and how the first five were failures for various reasons ranging from deformities to androgynous life forms. Finally, the sixth was successful and insemination was used to produce the first humans from this humanoid creation. Ninmah was the original scientist trying to engineer humans. After her multiple failures she became frustrated and asked Enki to take over the development. Each of these genetic failures was kept alive and cared for in the manner it required. This shows the benevolent nature of these advanced beings. Writings later reference the “black headed ones” whom the Anuna ruled. This is obviously a reference to early black skinned people who were likely the first mass-procreated creations of the Anuna. The reference to their color implies the Anuna were not black (otherwise, why call out the color?). But, no other skin color is described. Some theorize this genetic development took place in what the Hebrew and Christian Bible call the Garden of Eden and that Adam and Eve were the first two creations that were used to procreate humanity. The garden may have been a biosphere where the genetically engineered humanoids would be nurtured and studied–determining what needed to be improved upon. The obvious implication is that the Genesis stories of creation are actually rooted in Sumerian history and the Annuna (Annunaki).


Anunnaki and Creation of Man

www.youtube.com...

DNA Reveals Humans Are Designed By Aliens

www.youtube.com...



edit on 1-8-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Except that everything in your post is complete bull s#. Your first link is based on "research" by an alleged Professor Sam Chang at the Human Genome Project. The real problem here is that "Sam Chang" doesn't actually exist and I know 100% that nobody by that name EVER worked at the HGP.

Your second link and any reference to anuna or annunaki and the subsequent genetic manipulation of humanity is entirely based on one man's faulty translations of Sumerian text and none of what he claims actually took place in the Sumerian literature let alone real life.

Likewise with your 1st youtube video "annunaki and creation of man"

As for the 2nd youtube video, again bull s#. Human DNA from yesterday, 1000 years, 10,000, 20,000 or 45,000 years old is all the same. There is absolutely no hint of tampering, abrupt changes or anything else that would distinguish any of them apart genetically.

The explanations are purely 20th and 21st century fictions designed to sell books and advertising slots on History Channel's 'Ancient Aliens' series. I'm sorry if I come off overly harsh but its incredibly frustrating to see people constantly use the same "evidence" over and over and just repeat it because it sounds like it makes sense to them but can't be bothered to do any basic fact checking. Especially with "Prof. Chang". A little internet sleuthing on his name alone should have set off enough red flags to make you question the entire premise. And I won't even get started on Sitchin's hokum translations...



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You sound like a 911 debunker, you believe you are an expert in Sitchin's work. I only presented a different alternative besides the Bible and many of mainstream pseudo science.


As for the 2nd youtube video, again bull s#. Human DNA from yesterday, 1000 years, 10,000, 20,000 or 45,000 years old is all the same. There is absolutely no hint of tampering, abrupt changes or anything else that would distinguish any of them apart genetically.


That is your "opinion" and you certainly have not disproved anything in any of the videos. Do you have proof there is no human DNA tampering, lets see it?


The explanations are purely 20th and 21st century fictions designed to sell books and advertising slots on History Channel's 'Ancient Aliens' series. I'm sorry if I come off overly harsh but its incredibly frustrating to see people constantly use the same "evidence" over and over and just repeat it because it sounds like it makes sense to them but can't be bothered to do any basic fact checking. Especially with "Prof. Chang". A little internet sleuthing on his name alone should have set off enough red flags to make you question the entire premise. And I won't even get started on Sitchin's hokum translations...


Again this is you "opinion" nothing more. It appears to me that you have done little to no research in Sitchin work but to ridicule it. I agree Sitchin work might have a flaw or two and is still being worked on, however it doesn't mean Sitchin deliberately lied in his translations and all his work should be ignored. You have a lot to learn my friend.
edit on 2-8-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Please define "mainstream pseudo science". Otherwise you're talking nonsense!



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: peter vlar

You sound like a 911 debunker, you believe you are an expert in Sitchin's work. I only presented a different alternative besides the Bible and many of mainstream pseudo science.


Interesting how you focus on Sitchin and completely ignore the fake scientist from HGP that is the source of your first piece of "evidence". 911 has nothing to do with this and the analogy poorly suits the argument as it is merely a distraction. Why not address the fact that your illustrious "Prof. Chang" isn't an actual person let alone scientist from the HGP? How can a fictitious person give evidence? And while we're at it, what exactly is "mainstream pseudoscience"? Statements like that will give people the impression that you are scientifically illiterate.


That is your "opinion" and you certainly have not disproved anything in any of the videos. Do you have proof there is no human DNA tampering, lets see it?

Again, this statements solidifies your level of scientific illiteracy. One does not prove a negative. One demonstrates evidence in the affirmative. Neither the videos nor yourself have demonstrated anything resembling evidence. Show me a scholarly article supporting the point of view you seem married to. YouTube videos aren't evidence of anything other than clever editing and confirmation bias.

Again this is you "opinion" nothing more. It appears to me that you have done little to no research in Sitchin work but to ridicule it. I agree Sitchin work might have a flaw or two and is still being worked on, however it doesn't mean Sitchin deliberately lied in his translations and all his work should be ignored. You have a lot to learn my friend.


I've actually done quite a bit of reading on Sitchin and his "work". It was people like Sitchin and Robert Schoch who made me want to study Anthropology to better understand our past. Unfortunately for them, I did learn about the past and people like Sitchin haven't got a clue. I never stated, nor did I imply, that Sitchin purposely lied. What I said is that his translations are completely faulty and the text he claims talks about the Annunaki, Nibiru etc... does not say anything remotely resembling his claims. I'll take the word of actual scholars on the subject like Samuel Noah Kramer who studied their language and culture for decades over Sitchin, someone with a degree in economics which has nothing to do with ancient civilizations or linguistics.

I believe his intentions were true and that he really believed what he claimed. Actual scholars of ancient Sumeria however completely disagree. His work actually should be ignored. It has no basis in reality or accuracy. I'm not the one who has a lot to learn here.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: peter vlar

You sound like a 911 debunker,

How is this comment in any way relevant to this discussion?
believe you are an expert in Sitchin's work.Sitchin was a fraud. One doesn't have to be an 'expert' to know that a fraudulent liar made a living writing fraudulent lies; One simply has to look into the (peer-reviewed) work done by actual experts in the pertinent fields to see through the BS.

I only presented a different alternative besides the Bible and many of mainstream pseudo science.

I suppose you did, but made-up "translations" of an ancient language are just as useless as the Bible and other pseudo-science/history.

That is your "opinion" and you certainly have not disproved anything in any of the videos.

Fortunately, countless actual experts and academics have already done the work disproving the lies put forth by your YouTube videos, so others need not waste their time.

Do you have proof there is no human DNA tampering, lets see it?

Yeah, see, the thing is, since you are the one making the ridiculous claims, the onus is on you to prove them, not the other way around. Do you have proof that our (as a species) DNA has been "tampered" with? No, you don't.

It appears to me that you have done little to no research in Sitchin work but to ridicule it.

...And it appears to me (and everyone else) that you haven't made any effort whatsoever to verify any of Sitchin's claims. If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I agree Sitchin work might have a flaw or two

That's the understatement of the year.

and is still being worked on,

I doubt it, seeing as how he's dead.

however it doesn't mean Sitchin deliberately lied in his translations and all his work should be ignored.

Sitchin was either deliberately lying, or he was extremely mentally ill, to the point of believing his own delusions to be fact (that's not the case, however; He was a liar). Does it really matter either way?

You have a lot to learn my friend.

This seems rather hypocritical, coming from someone who obviously hasn't done any independent research of their own in attempt to verify the wild (and imbecilic) claims put forth by fringe authors...



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
So, they existed, and lived in the garden of eden. I will even go for them being a new model.
But it happened on a planet that is over 4 billion years old.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Frocharocha

And the source is christiantoday.com, of course..

Even if they could pin point a male and female human as being where humans started, who's to say aliens didn't create us? In those times aliens would be gods to us.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: spacemanjupiter

I agree because some couple had to be the start of homo sapiens its as simple as that.

The big question would we, as a manufactured species (which we can't dispute either scientifically or biblically), regard our 'maker' as a God/boss- where we deliberately programmed to do this in order for us to be obedient little slaves?



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
The big question would we, as a manufactured species (which we can't dispute either scientifically or biblically)

Umm...What? We absolutely can dispute it scientifically.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: spacemanjupiter

I agree because some couple had to be the start of homo sapiens its as simple as that.


Nope it's not simple as that. The human race couldn't sustain itself with 2 individuals. Sapiens evolved from their previous hominid ancestors as a group. It didn't start with one man and one woman. That goes against science and the minimum sustainable population.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


Not only do you not understand a joke, but perhaps you should refrain from labelling people idiots because you assumed what they know of the TOE & DNA/genetic coding.

I didn't label you an idiot. I said you had not a hope of knowing the answer to your question, because it takes some knowledge of biochemistry (not evolution or genetic coding) to know it. I'd say anyone who calls a living organism a 'flesh and blood transformer' (what about plants? they don't have any flesh or blood but they evolve too) is clearly so ignorant of biochemistry that they haven't — as I say — a hope of knowing it.


It does you a disservice.

I'll live with it.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
OOOHHH MYYYY




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

4.52 billion years of natural physiological and biochemical processes



1) We barely know, for example, the truth behind 9/11, which was 14 years ago: with eye-witness testimony, camera footage, a handful of Investigative agencies, etc. How are we supposed to know what happened 4.52 billion years ago, let alone 4.52 million years ago, let alone 4.52 thousand years ago? I think we have gotten carried away with what we think we know. We barely have scratched the surface on "knowing" about the tool that, to the extent of my "knowledge", allows us to "know": the brain.

2) How did natural physiological and biochemical processes come into being? How did pi and phi, numbers that have an infinite number of decimal places with no repeating sequences, both manifest in nature? Also, planetary orbits can be likened to a golf ball twirling around the rim of the hole ad infinitum.

If I am wrong and this phenomenon of life is all just one big accident... then it wouldn't matter anyway because endless nothingness awaits regardless of what I do with my life. I'd rather fight for hope, no matter how hopeless things may look.

edit on 3-8-2015 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I was actually interested in this at first, because it came from someone who has actually earned a degree from an accredited university.

... Then I read the excerpts, which instead of genetic and scientific info contained instead a commentary on a literal interpretation of Genesis and how scientific research needs to be viewed only through the lense of 2 chapters in the Bible.



I will say, I am a Christian and some creation based studies I do find interesting. Yet anytime anything potentially interesting comes up it is swept aside in favor of sensationalist articles / "research" that are touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Oftentimes despite the fact that they have been proven 100% wrong.

I believe God got the ball rolling, but He also created a self-sustaining and self-adapting system. To what extent, I don't know. I wasn't there. The creation story in Genesis seems to be more of an overview / generalization, a way to convey that which is not so easy to explain.

That's my two cents anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join