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.

 

Starchild bump

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Link
Go down to Replication, repair, transcription, and translation and have a read. Then read Mitochondrial diseases.

After reading that you'll see why Pye is full of it.


Sorry man not seeing "it".

What I see is you trying and failing, to show how a difference of 6.3% is okay when the variation in this region of mtdna has been shown to have a variation of only 0.6% across all haplotypes.

You are grasping at straws, and I suspect you know little about that straw. Not saying that I'm any great biologist, I'm not...but, I have the presence of mind to learn what I can about the subject I'm talking about...although in this case simple mathematics would seem to be more than sufficient.




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
Actually...it called extrapolation, and yes it actually does work just like that!

No, it doesn't. Extrapolation does not work on non-random data. We already had this discussion. Need to have it again?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

As has been explained, there was documented contamination which resulted in the tests needing to be done again in 1999.

Also, that link I supplied shows you that mtDNA can and does breakdown, merge with other mtDNA, can drastically change in just one generation, diseases have an effect on mtDNA.

And I'm still waiting for the data you say exists. Just a link will do.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Considering they use 440 base pairs to figure out who the mother is, the 157/167 number is tiny.

Plus, it was contaminated which can easily explain anomalies. The BOLD tests had to be done 2 or 3 times (I can't remember which) because of contamination.

The results that have been released FROM TWO (2) LABS show it was human. Yet the newest one shows it wasn't, but they never released the data to the public. I wonder why?


Contaminated? Evidence! or it isn't true...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
Actually...it called extrapolation, and yes it actually does work just like that!

No, it doesn't. Extrapolation does not work on non-random data. We already had this discussion. Need to have it again?


Yes we have...you are wrong! It works equally well on all data...

Now, before you respond...you will have to provide some proof that you are correct.

edit on 3-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Considering they use 440 base pairs to figure out who the mother is, the 157/167 number is tiny.

Plus, it was contaminated which can easily explain anomalies. The BOLD tests had to be done 2 or 3 times (I can't remember which) because of contamination.

The results that have been released FROM TWO (2) LABS show it was human. Yet the newest one shows it wasn't, but they never released the data to the public. I wonder why?


Contaminated? Evidence! or it isn't true...


The 1999 tests stated they had to run the tests again as it was heavily contaminated. It's in their report.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
Actually...it called extrapolation, and yes it actually does work just like that!

No, it doesn't. Extrapolation does not work on non-random data. We already had this discussion. Need to have it again?


Yes we have...you are wrong! Drop it!


Scientifically, he isn't wrong.

What Pye and his gang have done is twist science to fit their agenda.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The 1999 tests stated they had to run the tests again as it was heavily contaminated. It's in their report.


How about we use 2011 data instead...it is a bit more current.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The 1999 tests stated they had to run the tests again as it was heavily contaminated. It's in their report.


How about we use 2011 data instead...it is a bit more current.



Current and false as they have never released the data. If they haven't released the data we can't prove either way.

And about contamination, read this..


The lab tried unsuccessfully to isolate the DNA of the Starchild Skull several times, with each attempt resulting in a contamination. This means that DNA was recovered but it was clear that it was not from the actual Skull, but instead from one of the many people who had handled the Skull over the years.

Finally the lab recovered DNA that they believed was not contaminated, but the amount recovered was only 20% of the normal minimum amount of DNA required to give a result. The DNA they recovered was human nuclear DNA from the "Y" chromosome, and the lab reported that this proved the Skull to be a human male.


Guess what site it's from?















THEIR OWN SITE



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Scientifically, he isn't wrong.

What Pye and his gang have done is twist science to fit their agenda.


Actually, mathematically, he is incorrect...And it is not Pye that is twisting things it is you ...you grasp at straws, jump to illogical conclusion, and best of all...use obsolete data...and even at that your view is an extreme stretch...when using current data, you know the data you say doesn't exist, that can be found on the starchild website; the science says quite the opposite of what insist upon.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
Actually...it called extrapolation, and yes it actually does work just like that!

No, it doesn't. Extrapolation does not work on non-random data. We already had this discussion. Need to have it again?


Yes we have...you are wrong! It works equally well on all data...

Now, before you respond...you will have to provide some proof that you are correct.

Awesome. I will provide proof in a very simple easy to understand format.

Let us use the 2008 US presidential election.

We will determine support for Obama. We will choose to only survey black voters in Massachusetts. We will then extrapolate those results to the whole country. How accurate will the results be do you think?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

So show me the most current data.

I've asked how many times?
And how many times have you given it to me? Zero



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Want to know something amazingly interesting?

They STILL want $250,000 to fully map the genome of the skull and it will take 2 years.

That's funny. Last year there was a MAJOR release that you can get your own genome mapped for about $1000.

So let's just say it's a bit more difficult and might take a couple of days. Let's be real nice to them and say it would cost $10,000.

Why hasn't it been done yet?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Current and false as they have never released the data. If they haven't released the data we can't prove either way.



So the articles and files that contain data from 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 don't exist? Why do I see them there? And why do they contain elements of the starchild skull dataset?

Don't even try to explain...we don't need any more of your dishonesty.

Anyone who cares enough to find out for themselves can go to starchildproject.com... and find the data for themselves...it is all right there.

Now then, on the "false" allegation. IF you are going to make a statement like you will have to provide proof!



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Melba will map it, and compare it to the Bigfoot DNA.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

I have been through that whole site tonight and there is no data. There are "reports" and "summaries" and "analysis", but not anyway data.

I'd also like to note that on the website they have actually lied about what was said during the 1999 tests. There was even a letter that stated Pye had lied about what the results said and Pye replied to it.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
Actually...it called extrapolation, and yes it actually does work just like that!

No, it doesn't. Extrapolation does not work on non-random data. We already had this discussion. Need to have it again?


Yes we have...you are wrong! It works equally well on all data...

Now, before you respond...you will have to provide some proof that you are correct.

Awesome. I will provide proof in a very simple easy to understand format.

Let us use the 2008 US presidential election.

We will determine support for Obama. We will choose to only survey black voters in Massachusetts. We will then extrapolate those results to the whole country. How accurate will the results be do you think?


You know full well it doesn't work quite like that, and, that what you are attempting to demonstrate is vastly different than the current context.

You either don't really have any notion what we're talking about here, or you are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting reader...shame...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryDon79

Melba will map it, and compare it to the Bigfoot DNA.


Probably lol.




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

So, are you going to link me DIRECTLY to this mystery data you say exists?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
So the articles and files that contain data from 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014 don't exist? Why do I see them there? And why do they contain elements of the starchild skull dataset?



It doesn't. There are conclusions, not data.

After obtaining sequencing data, the geneticist compared the new sequences to millions of sequences recovered by other researchers from all over the world, looking for a match.

What is the sequencing data, where can I see it?


Those worldwide results have been deposited into a massive database maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Washington, D.C. That database was created by NIH scientists from genomes and partial genomes of thousands of plant and animal species—from sponges to humans—that have been recovered with the help of NIH funding.

How was this done? What exactly was entered? Everything required is missing. Conclusions, not data.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join