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.

 

Ancient Ancestors Had More DNA Than We Do Now: Have we Devolved?

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Less DNA means that we have been "fine tuned."




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

Ok. So lets not talk about how the theory of evolution classifies homosexuality as a disease. What about the fact that the apparent loss of genestic information seems to violate the theory of evolution? Evolution teaches that we become more, yet observation shows that we degenerated. If you consider my observations as nothing more than a religious opportunistic jab, then you need to look past your cognitive dissonance.

What if somehow genesis happens to have the answers? Is it so hard to admit that our human observations might just be wrong sometimes?

I happen to think this is very much on topic, and a branch of the discussion that should be explored.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Less DNA means that we have been "fine tuned."


I'm curious about what you mean by "fine tuned"?

For what exactly? What environment are we "fine tuned" for?

We've been as we are now, for at least a few thousand years... So ignoring technology and the advances it's brought us, what niche did we need to evolve into that left us with the traits we have now?


edit on 14-8-2015 by gspat because: stuff



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

The way I see "evolution", its really adaptive degeneration. One way or another, we will degenerate to the point of extinction if left alone. Adaptation is simply a way to postpone the inevitable.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Fine tuning would require more genetic data, not less. It takes a sensitive and complicated electronic chromatic tuner to fine tune my guitar.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest




we degenerated into disease.


And where did disease come from. That's right it came from Eve - and the banishment from Eden, silly me



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: AnuTyr

The way I see "evolution", its really adaptive degeneration. One way or another, we will degenerate to the point of extinction if left alone. Adaptation is simply a way to postpone the inevitable.
to a degree my friend as i mentioned in my prior post. It's all a roll of the dice. It's rigged that much of the roles will either of these outcomes. The genetic injection does nothing as the RNA codes has no activating feature in order to by synthesized into proteins, The RNA could cause mild to severe genetic alterations through RNA reading the injected site creating proteins that reinfect more cells such as many viruses do in Lysis stage of infection.

See this diagram.


Lytic is when the virus injects but the host cell caries proteins able to read and replicate the RNA the virus injects in order for the Lytic cycle to occure. Lysogenic is when the cell injects the RNA but remains dorment in the cell. Which means when ever an immune system is compromised by a virus, the immune system can only force it into the Lysogenic stage as it goes dorment in cells. And it's impossible to tell which cells are holding the dorment RNA codes because the immune system only responds to Lytic infection.

But it is also this common method of viral reproduction that allows new proteins to be created. What was once a virus may become a protein utilized to develop a new host cell. Typically the body uses them to develop phages. The most widely known Phage is the white blood cell. But white blood cells primary usage is to spot and tag infected cells so the other phages developed by symbotic virus components called T-Phages are used to attack infected cells in conjuction with Anti-gens.

So it is honestly entirely random if any change occures or not. and if change occures if it's positive or not. It's not always degenerative. But the Odds are in favor of degeneration since our genetic code is very specific. and not all RNA is welcomed.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest




It takes a sensitive and complicated electronic chromatic tuner to fine tune my guitar.



And when the battery runs out do you get god to recharge the battery or do you buy a new battery.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Funny how very few miracles occurred in the new testament after Jesus left the scene



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
anyways my point is, The smaller and compact a genetic structure is. The more likely it is engineered by intelligent design. As larger groups of coding allows more room for error to occure. Complexity isn't always a good thing in terms of numbers of viable genes and its ability to ward off infection. The more codes available, the more chances of things going wrong.

So any organism we would develop and want to remain the same unchanged for long periods of time would want to create it with a very small and compact system. It's highly likely that what ever created us utilized Primates as the chasis and skimmed out much of the junk DNA and chromosomes to make something that is efficent compact and resistant to changes.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

So, in effect, your kinda saying we as a species were infected with mange... And it was a good thing?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
There is literally no such thing as "devolution". Evolution only goes in one direction.

Also, nothing is "more evolved". You are not "more evolved" than anything else.

The people spouting off this sh!t have clearly never studied evolution in a serious capacity. This must be some kind of joke. You can't just take actual scientific terms and butcher them like that, making up your own definitions as you go along.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: sirChill
It always has struck me strange that humans are so different to all mammals in some really peculiar ways. Ways that definitely don't seem to fit into the darwinian theory.

The human brain provides logic, speech, art and requires an enormous caloric requirement...yet its only 2% of our body mass (compared to a birds brain to mass ratio which is 8%).

Nakedness or hairlessness makes almost no-sense from an evolution stand point, not for a mammal.

Blushing (seriously, there is no evolutionary benefit)

We live much longer then most animals when reproduction is no longer possible.

Im sure there are one off cases where one animal here or there might have "one" characteristic like ours, but no other animals have "all" these characteristics...seems very strange if you ask me.


The bird comparison makes no sense. Birds aren't mammals. Small mammals like rats and mice have a brain/body size ratio that is comparable to ours.

Nakedness or hairlessness makes a lot of sense actually. It was a cooling mechanism, for the same reason our sweat glands are so highly developed. Rhinos and elephants are mammals and they are hairless. Interestingly enough, they also live out on the savannah, the same environment early hominids occupied.

Blushing also makes a whole lot of sense for a highly communicative/social species. No doubt it could have played a role in sexual selection a as well.

Our long lives are a very recent phenomenon. Extremely recent. We didn't live much longer than the majority of mammals for most of our history.

We are not peculiar for a mammal at all, and a number of species have similar traits. The only real huge difference is cognition, which really isn't even as remarkable as people try to portray.
edit on 14-8-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: gspat
a reply to: AnuTyr

So, in effect, your kinda saying we as a species were infected with mange... And it was a good thing?



mange is a genetic defect. We were made to be mostly hairless for a number of reasons including hygene. Its easier to clean our skin than it is to clean through wads of hair. Also, When we cut or damage ourselves there's no need to shave away hairs to clean a wound. And making sure hair does not get in a wound is very difficult. I'm sure a vet can tell you all about it.

Mange is a lot worse than just losing hair, it also calcifies the skin and can often leave open wounds and sores so no we don't have mange.

Genetically we are made to be what we are right now with as few loose ends as possible. It's not easy to create a scientient species that comprehends language, has a large enough brain with sophesicated neurons able to record an assimilate visual and internal information. That has a long life span longer than most other mammals. Humans on average live 70-100 years which is quite extrodinary in of itself compared to many other species that don't share our longevity aside from a handful of reptiles.

Given our incredible intellect we can and have developed technology and usage of electricity. All with the small 23 base pair chromsomes we have. Well at the same time remaining distinct yet similar to our template cousins the primates.

If we evolved from primates we should share the same base pair chromosomes that all primates share which is 46 base pairs. Double our own. Also keep in mind, there are far less primates on this planet than humans. And primate are highly suseptable to diseases, We often have to air drop in food that is laced with anti-gens and vaccines just to prevent mass die offs because many primates are vulnerable to outbursts of plague.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

Ya, that only 23 base pairs of chromosomes thing is the megaton elephant in the room evolutionists like to ignore.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Different adaptations, scaling them down, to the environment seems likely.

And that maybe the gene pools might have adopted that way because of being closer especially in more closed off regions. Possible for a time. You'd think wouldn't more genetics then would have played a part during the interbreeding of the Neanderthals.. Denisovians... with(and that maybe have been also-depends on researcher) homo sapiens. Guess it balanced out after that time, especially in, and as mentioned in closed off regions.

One theory could be because, as Terrence McKenna mentions, the use of psilocybins.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but less DNA doesn't necessarily make a less advanced organism. For example the human brain starts off with a highly interconnected synaptic network but over time, as we repeat actions and learn skills, most of the excess connections are trimmed back through a process called synaptic annealing, but the connections we use all the time are strengthened, allowing us to specialize in the things we practice. This process is often simulated in artificial neural networks, a process called simulated annealing. Evolution could work in a similar fashion, our DNA could be trimmed back over time to cut out the useless stuff and keep the stuff we need, making the remaining DNA work better overall. Our junk DNA may very well be lots of random stuff we have yet to discard.
edit on 15/8/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

mange is a genetic defect.
Mange is a disease caused by parasites.


If we evolved from primates we should share the same base pair chromosomes that all primates share which is 46 base pairs.
Humans have 46 chromosomes.

You think other primates have 46 "base pairs?" Do you know what a base pair is?
edit on 8/14/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AnuTyr

mange is a genetic defect.
Mange is a disease caused by parasites.


If we evolved from primates we should share the same base pair chromosomes that all primates share which is 46 base pairs.
Humans have 46 chromosomes.

You think other primates have 46 "base pairs?" Do you know what a base pair is?


Chimps have 48 chromosomes we have 46, but a goldfish has 94 chromosomes and a Toucan has 106 chromosomes. Where is that clear line of evolution?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP
What does the number of chromosomes have to do with evolution?

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com...



edit on 8/15/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join