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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
According to the theory of evolution that the public school taught me, anything that stands in the way of reproduction is considered disease. So in light of evolution, what does that say about homosexuality?


It says absolutely nothing as homosexual people are not infertile and many if not most of them reproduce.


No one said they are. What source do you have for your 'many if not most' claim? My google-fu is not producing any results.

Of course a side question would be "Why do they want to reproduce?" But that is a topic for another thread.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




A universal common ancestor would possess all genetic possibility
Again, why?
You make a lot of bold statements but don't seem to support them.

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



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




A universal common ancestor would possess all genetic possibility
Again, why?
You make a lot of bold statements but don't seem to support them.


No, you need to support why a common ancestor has the possibility of what is now.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




No, you need to support why a common ancestor has the possibility of what is now.

Pretty basic really.
Mutation is change. One change results in a branch. Each branch has it's own changes. And so on.
That's why different species of fish have different chromosome counts. That's why different species of primates have different chromosome counts.



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



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu


No one said they are. What source do you have for your 'many if not most' claim? My google-fu is not producing any results.

Of course a side question would be "Why do they want to reproduce?" But that is a topic for another thread.


No, I know the other poster never said they are infertile, but re-read his question again and see what it implies. Homosexuality doesn't go against reproduction, hence my answer.

You want a source to verify that many if not most homosexual people have children? You just have to look around you or read newspapers and magazines, even famous people like Elton John and Ricky Martin have fathered their own children. How many homosexuals married and have children before finally coming out? I don't think there is a census for your question, but there is a census in the US regarding couples raising families: 42% of heterosexual couples raise children. 25% of gay couples (either gender) raise children (abcnews.go.com...).

And your last question is off topic, yes, but ask yourself: why do heterosexual people want to reproduce? That will also be the answer for homosexuals.... they are not aliens, they are humans just like you and me, we are all the same.

edit on 16-8-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




No, you need to support why a common ancestor has the possibility of what is now.

Pretty basic really.
Mutation is change. One change results in a branch. Each branch has it's own changes. And so on.
That's why different species of fish have different chromosome counts. That's why different species of primates have different chromosome counts.




Nice theory but nobody ever witnessed a new species come from a mutation. Requires more faith than religion.
edit on 16-8-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Nice theory but nobody ever witnessed a new species come from a mutation.

From a single mutation, not often. From accumulated mutations, yes.
As I'm sure you have been shown before and chose to ignore.
edit on 8/16/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I suppose it is possible to come to that conclusion, but only by entirely ignoring the work of not only Darwin, and Wallace, but also Francis and Crick.

Good work!



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
it just adds more credibility to the ancient aliens theory. was it exactly like Sitchin interpreted? probably not "exactly" but if at least the premise is true then we'd better start wrapping our heads around it. modern humans are the product of genetic manipulation- big deal. Once people accept that, then we can get on to changing our energy paradigm. We need to grow up and stop f-ing around with these archaic methods of producing energy. think about how things would change if we stopped using fossil fuels and nukes. how did I get on energy paradigms you may ask? If we were genetically altered and are mixed with "their" genes that means there are advanced races who travel around space doing stuff like we do today here on Earth. Of course that's why we're so f'd up as a species, get over it. Let's get smart now ok?

a reply to: gspat



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Nice theory but nobody ever witnessed a new species come from a mutation.

From a single mutation, not often. From accumulated mutations, yes.
As I'm sure you have been shown before and chose to ignore.


We haven't even witnessed them from multiple mutations, only inferred.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy

For some people just about anything adds credibility to the AA theory (including guys with great hair). Can you be more specific about why you think the loss of base pairs does?

Genome reduction occurs in pretty much all species.
scholar.google.com...

edit on 8/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




We haven't even witnessed them from multiple mutations, only inferred.

False.
Observed speciation as a result of a single mutation:
www.jstor.org...

Observed speciation as a result of accumulated mutation.
www.jstor.org...

edit on 8/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bottleslingguy



Genome reduction occurs in pretty much all species.
scholar.google.com...

oh really? "prettymuch all species"? your article mentions two kinds of bacteria and still needs to be refined. Here you go again throwing wrenches to muddy the waters.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

where are all the intermediate examples or did an elephant just up and give birth to a whale? (or however the theory goes) you guys can't fill in the blanks and that's where you fall short.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: gspat

Maybe we evolved so that we no longer needed to make vit c because we have gut flora that can make it for us..

:-)



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu




We haven't even witnessed them from multiple mutations, only inferred.

False.
Observed speciation as a result of a single mutation:
www.jstor.org...

Observed speciation as a result of accumulated mutation.
www.jstor.org...


Plant speciation is not evolution which create an entirely new species, it's a standard plant characteristic. Their DNA is a lot more fluid that animals.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Teikiatsu


No one said they are. What source do you have for your 'many if not most' claim? My google-fu is not producing any results.

Of course a side question would be "Why do they want to reproduce?" But that is a topic for another thread.


No, I know the other poster never said they are infertile, but re-read his question again and see what it implies. Homosexuality doesn't go against reproduction, hence my answer.


I'm aware of all that. My curiosity is, why are people who are not interested in heterosexual sex driven to procreate and/or adopt and raise children? These two aspects of procreation appear to be at odds with each other.


You want a source to verify that many if not most homosexual people have children? You just have to look around you or read newspapers and magazines, even famous people like Elton John and Ricky Martin have fathered their own children. How many homosexuals married and have children before finally coming out? I don't think there is a census for your question, but there is a census in the US regarding couples raising families: 42% of heterosexual couples raise children. 25% of gay couples (either gender) raise children (abcnews.go.com...).

And your last question is off topic, yes, but ask yourself: why do heterosexual people want to reproduce? That will also be the answer for homosexuals.... they are not aliens, they are humans just like you and me, we are all the same.


Yes, they are humans. I'm not saying they aren't. But they are not the same as you and me (assuming you are straight.) They are (supposedly) not interested in having sex with an opposite gender. If they take their homosexual behavior to the logical extreme, they would never procreate. If they are not driven to procreate, why the drive to raise kids?

Thanks for the article by the way, good numbers.

It does strike down your 'many if not most' claim, by the way. If 25% of gay couples are raising kids, and 80% of those kids are from previous heterosexual relationships, that means that only 20% of couples are raising kids that they were instrumental in helping produce, which means that (in general) only 1 of those 2 people in that new union are procreating (making it 10%). I'll be charitable and say that half of those unions are raising kids from 2 separate heterosexual pairings and raise that up to 15% of gays that formed unions that they consider to be marriages.

That's before we get into the percentage of gays that are actually in unions versus single, which will lower that 15% even more.

So not many, certainly not most.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join