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.

 

Scientists discover single gene mutation which led to multi-cellular animal life

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Ok I'm sorry, I can't ignore you any longer. This is flat out the silliest, most dishonest, incredulous post I've seen yet. You have no counterpoints for anything he said. He broke down all the science and debunked your claim conclusively and thoroughly and you just blindly deny it with no explanation.



He did nothing of the sort. All evidence of carbon dating dinosaur, coal and diamond remains indicates they are not millions of years old. He has not addressed how soft tissue is found in dinosaur fossils, or why there is radiocarbon remaining in it. Until anyone provides viable counterevidence... the issue with contemporary dogma remains an achilles heel in evolutionary theory.

"You can't carbon date things older than 100kya"

True, but the remnant radiocarbon in coal diamonds and dinosaurs all indicate that you can, because they are not as old as we were lead to believe.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Well I've already explained about diamonds. Uranium in the ground can give a false C-14 reading. Also the make up of artificial vs real diamonds are different. You can see it in the crystals.

Coal is basically the same. Contaminants will cause a false C-14 reading.

About "soft tissue" in dinosaurs. Guess what? It's called soft tissue, but isn't actually soft at all. Chemicals are added to it to make it soft so they can take a sample of it. Also, C-14 dating on something that is millions of years old would tell you it isn't as old as it really is as C-14 dating something that old isn't practical and isn't used because of the false readings it gives.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

C14 isn't used to date dinosaur fossils OR diamonds. How many times do folks have to tell you this? Care to have another go without the blatant dishonesty?
edit on 1 15 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Ok I'm sorry, I can't ignore you any longer. This is flat out the silliest, most dishonest, incredulous post I've seen yet. You have no counterpoints for anything he said. He broke down all the science and debunked your claim conclusively and thoroughly and you just blindly deny it with no explanation.



He did nothing of the sort. All evidence of carbon dating dinosaur, coal and diamond remains indicates they are not millions of years old.


This statement is absolutely false and you have provided no peer reviewed data to support your fallacious assertion. Diamonds can absolutely NOT be dated. The only way to ascertain a minimum age of a diamond is to date the occlusions within said diamond. As the diamond forms around the occlusions, the age of the occlusions gives you the youngest potential date of the diamond. I already explained to you that Uranium is also found in coal seams. The radiation from the Uranium affects beta particles of everything in its vicinity.


"Geology of uranium in coaly carbonaceous rocks." 1962. J.D. Vine. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper. Pages 113-170.
ABSTRACT: U is one of many inorganic constituents associated with coal, impure coal, coaly shale, and carbonaceous shale. These rocks normally contain less than 0.0001% U. At least 0.005 and as much as 0.1% U is known to occur locally in alpine-meadow peaty soils, in carbonaceous shale beds, and as large low-grade deposits in lignite and subbituminous coal in the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions. Bituminous and anthracitic coal is only rarely known to contain as much as 0.005% U even locally. Economically significant tonnages of impure lignite and lignitic shale contain as much as 0.1% U in at least 14 areas in the United States. Nearly half of these areas occur in the Fort Union lignite region of western North and South Dakota. Most of these deposits occur in thin beds of impure lignitic rocks that have been weathered to soft earthy material containing about 50% moisture. U occurs chiefly as an epigenetic constituent of the plant remains in coaly rock, chemically fixed by cation exchange on the humic matter. The localization of deposits is dependent on the availability of U in ground-water solutions, the structure and permeability of the adjacent rock, and especially on the permeability and chemical susceptibility of the coaly rock. The peculiar set of conditions necessary to form an economically significant deposit of U in coaly carbonaceous rocks is rarely met and follows no easily predictable pattern.



Example of high uranium content in certain coals:
"Anomalous trace element abundances in Tertiary coal ash from East Garo Hills, Meghalaya, India." 1996. I.V. Sastry, M.S. Deshpande, and K.K. Dwivedy. Journal of Atomic Mineral Science 4:75-79.
ABSTRACT: Coal ash of Thakmari-Wathregithem Tertiary coals from East Garo Hills record anomalous concentrations of uranium (up to 0.219% U3 O8), vanadium (up to 9.3%), chromium (up to 1.7%), copper (up to 1.17%), manganese (up to 0.15%), cobalt (up to 1.15%), strontium (up to 0.38%), barium (up to 0.30%), and lead (up to 0.75%). Economic aspects as well as possible implications of such high concentrations are briefly evaluated


Recent studies show that 14C can be created underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create 14C from 12C. This results from a unique decay mode known as "cluster decay" where a given isotope emits a particle heavier than an alpha particle (radium-226 is an example.)

www.c14dating.com...
www.asa3.org...


He has not addressed how soft tissue is found in dinosaur fossils, or why there is radiocarbon remaining in it. Until anyone provides viable counterevidence... the issue with contemporary dogma remains an achilles heel in evolutionary theory.


Actually, I did address this specifically. If not directly to you, I certainly did in this post- www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for Mary Schweitzer, her work stands on its own. The biggest problem I see is that she is quote mined and has data removed from proper context by proponents of YEC to make it appear as if her data supports the YEC position. Her work does not support it at all. Most people seem to think she cut into a T-Rex femur and blood and soft tissue oozed out. That most definitely was not the case. The soft tissue was preserved, that doesn't mean it was soft. In the lab, chamicals are used to demineralize the samples. At that point, yes, the material becomes soft and easier to take tiny samples for use in SEM but the material didn't start off spongy.


I'll repeat it again and try to be more clear... there was preserved soft tissue, yes. But it was permineralized just like the bone within which that soft tissue lay. It was not soft until it was chemically treated for analysis. Please demonstrate a peer reviewed paper showing levels of 14c in permineralized dinosaur remains.



"You can't carbon date things older than 100kya"


True, but the remnant radiocarbon in coal diamonds and dinosaurs all indicate that you can, because they are not as old as we were lead to believe.


Your hyperbolic assertions are just that...hyperbolic because you flat out refuse to look at anything that is out of context with your bizarro world version of science. You have failed to support a single one of your assertions. No legitimate testing has ever been done that gives any credence to your assertions. If that data had been published that means that another completely independent laboratory reproduced the testing and came up with the same results. This has never occurred. Ever. It's your life so feel free to spend the rest of it willfully ignorant if that's what puts wind in your sails but there isn't an iota of evidence supporting your nonsensical claims.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

A scientist exists as a fully evolved DNA status after millions of years of radiation changes.

All animals exist in a fully evolved DNA status after millions of years of radiation changes.

Modern day science mutates the DNA....from changing natural evolved radiation light and sound.

Scientists are reviewing/considering fake and false information....how can you change evolution and then claim you understand evolution?

The mutated material is gone...therefore the evolution of DNA in history now altered....for DNA itself alters by light/sound vibrations.

Your personal review is already false for you changed natural life, hence all of your data can only be considered false.

New mutations evolve....how else does a human skull grow horns?

How can a scientist rationally state that they know evolution when all of the different species already exist in a status of self evolved?

Where is your personal evidence of information that you theorize about as a hypothesis?

As we also exist as a fully formed functioning body with all cellular activity interacting in the same moment, why do you believe your single reviews are correct? How could they be correct?

As you cannot review a fully functioning human being in 1 moment of total cellular interactions your data will always be false...a hypothesis that you believe and then try to indoctrinate the public with as advice.

If a species does not mutate....then why is it that a bird species in 1 species can demonstrate various specific differences? This was your own theory of natural selection...yet the bird stayed as the bird.

Since when does mutation make a species become another species?

Humans stay humans although their physical appearance may mutate to such an extent that you could only consider them as a mutant.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

i think there is no way i can really verify the truth about it because i dont understand it really.
that said, im a believer of science and absolutely anything that gets people away from explaining life through god/religion works for me

but 600 million years ago. gene mutation.
works for me


i will take that over the floating man any day


A believer of science maybe, but you aren't a practitioner of science since you just admitted to being biased, and in science, there is no room for bias as far as expecting to learn any truth about that which you say you don't understand.

Time will tell what you find.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: TinySickTears

By the sounds of it, they identified the gene and subsequent mutation that allowed single celled organisms to interact and bind to one another. This would help explain one event that facilitated the rise of a symbiotic relation ship leading to multi celled systems.


No, they think they reconstructed a gene sequence that could have led to the event.

In reality they reverse engineered how they think something *should* have occurred, which is basically inverse intelligent design. Irony.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

i think there is no way i can really verify the truth about it because i dont understand it really.
that said, im a believer of science and absolutely anything that gets people away from explaining life through god/religion works for me

but 600 million years ago. gene mutation.
works for me


i will take that over the floating man any day


A believer of science maybe, but you aren't a practitioner of science since you just admitted to being biased, and in science, there is no room for bias as far as expecting to learn any truth about that which you say you don't understand.

Time will tell what you find.


Science needing to understand evolution? what for?

You then review the status of science...wants a collider to work...wants to make the big bang happen.

The big bang happened...we exist...why would you want to try to make it happen again...and then say it will happen inside of your machine? Your machine never existed when the big bang happened.

Bias...what a laugh...scientists are prepared to inflict any sort of harm on life just to gain power....this is how ego driven they all are.

When you review what scientists have studied...human and life DNA. So you ask scientist, what do you need to know DNA for?

The review states...I want to copy how DNA uses its information for cellular replication...so that I can artificlally copy it...create artificial reactions and knowingly to steal the atmospheric reaction from life....being their personal psyche review. So they already conclude that they want to steal the atmosphere from human life....and no human being would exist afterwards.

I tell them DNA is information to allow the created human spirit to live by the applied information. Human cell recreate itself....etc. I tell them the atmosphere does not have this program....the human formed presence has the ownership of its DNA information status.

I tell them...when we die...there is no human DNA information as a spirit Creator.

I tell them.....we only exist because our parents had sex....we are not their spirit...we did not manifest out of origin light...we were created from their own physical presence. The scientist does not listen.

If our parents did not have sex...we would not be having this conversation and nor would you believe in spirit.

I say to them...human life does not exist in the atmosphere as a cell. If humans died animals would still live...they also survive by having sex. If animals did not have sex...no spirit exists.

Microbes exist in the atmosphere and I am not a microbe...I am not a single cell that you self advise multiplied to become my own cell information. I am also not a cell....I live and exist by cell replacement.

If you try to artificially encode our human DNA as a model of Creator...intelligence ...thinking for conversions as you imply by self review...our DNA will change and it would no longer support the natural cell functions.

Oh, that's right, that is why you believe in Aliens....especially when you look at the mutations of what happened to ancient human skulls when the radiation of the atmosphere was changed by sound.




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join