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.

 

Is it possible that the Atlanteans came from a planet in our own solar system?

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
How do chromosones split part 2
The different approaches to studying tertiary chromatin structure have yielded apparently conflicting models based on loops and scaffolds or on chromonema fibers. At present, it is not clear whether the results from these different systems can be reconciled at all or whether the differences arise because the systems studied are not representative or natural. Our goals in this study therefore were (i) to investigate tertiary chromatin structure in natural human chromosomes during interphase and (ii) to consider which models are consistent with structures observed in natural chromosomes.

The results obtained in the present study show that natural chromosomal domains of ∼400-kb yield images in which a single puncta or “bead” decondenses into a series of adjacent beads dependent upon transcription. These features seen in images of tertiary chromatin are likely to be quite common, since they arise in both natural and artificial systems, despite significant functional differences among these various systems. We also show here how these images of tertiary structures can be explained by adapting a loop-scaffold model, a chromonema model, or even a random-chain model. Therefore, the conclusion that tandem array systems favor chromonema models (16, 23, 40), although potentially still correct, is premature.


ok so I admit that not everything has a simple answer



would you like me to try and put all that in laymans terms for you



[edit on 24-9-2006 by Marduk]




posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
would you like me to try and put all that in laymans terms for you


If you are wanting me to understand how scientists can believe that a chromozone split in two inside a ape or monkey and that is how we evolved into present day humans then yes please.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by princeea
Yup, thats what I've heard too. There is a book called martian genesis that states this theory in detail.


I have not heard of this book before. I am currently reading the book "The Mars mystery" by Graham Hancock, after I am done reading this book I will have to look up Martian Genesis. I have had this theory for as long as I can remember. I finally broke down and bought Mr. Hancock's books to read and I am so glad that I did. Mr. Hancock and I have the same views to an extent on this subject. I look forward to reading Martian Genesis. Thanks


I'm reading Fingerprints of the Gods by the same guy right now. Great book so far. Really interesting theory about civilizations existing before was thought. I will have to check ou The Mars Mystery though.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   


If you are wanting me to understand how scientists can believe that a chromozone split in two inside a ape or monkey and that is how we evolved into present day humans then yes please.


chromosomes are made from Dna
Dna splits and then recombines
when it does that base pairs form new chromosomes
the adult then passes this new mutation onto its offspring
normally because the new formula is watered down by other contributing dna from other adults it gets washed out
if it happens enough times in enough adults the offspring have an extra chromsome
Evolution happens at a genetic level
animals don't suddenly turn into different species
but their dna recombines into new structures eventually leading to a new variant of an already established species
if this new variant is more succesful than the old the new type replaces the old by being better at surviving and passing on its genes to its offspring in the same environment due to limited resources
if it isn't succesful it becomes an evolutionary dead end and dies out

so a basic feline MK2 may become more successful than basic feline MK1 by having something as simple as better camouflage
in the case of primates we became better by evolving larger brains and more intelligence

thats about as simple as it gets

God didn't create us in his own image
because our original image was a hominid ape about 20,000,000 years ago
so unless God lived in a tree and was succesful at getting fruit............

the original bible went something like "OOK OOOOK OOK"



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Well that is a little easier to understand, but not completely. You must be a genetisis?

So does this mean when a chromozone splits then it just stays dormant inside a person until that person bears a child then the one part of the split chromozone is passed onto that child making that child a new breed of human?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Byrd, can you share what you know about the flying machines which are described in the Vedas? I only have the information that others have shared and I have no first hand knowledge of these 'vimanas'? I heard they are metallic, make a whirring noise while flying, and were only used by the nobles of the time. The common folk could not afford them.
It was also said that the engines contained mercury.
What do you know?

We had a huge discussion on this.

While there are, indeed, ancient Vedas that mention the concept of atoms before the Greeks did, and Vedas that have sophisticated math, the "flying machine" one was actually a book that did NOT exist until someone "channeled" it in the 1920's.

The errors in the book and design flaws are very typical of the 1920's.

It's "okay" for science fiction.

And Vimana, by the way, is a Hindu architectural term. It means "temple roof" and not "flying machine."



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Is it possible that the Atlanteans came from a planet in our own solar system?


Yes, in a sense, But not the Atlantians - for it was many of the Lumerians who were coming from Marduk (Ma-R-Duc), which was destroyed billions of years ago and now circles the sun as the Great Belt we see in between Jupiter and Mars.


[edit on 24-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
If you are wanting me to understand how scientists can believe that a chromozone split in two inside a ape or monkey and that is how we evolved into present day humans then yes please.


The same way that zebras evolved into 3 different species or shelducks evolved into nearly a dozen different species... they didn't wake up pregnant and have something that was completely different than before.

Look at the shelducks: www.utm.edu...

A species difference is small but significant; coloration, chromosomes, and shape. It's caused by mutations or changes in survival (one group of ducks blown to Australia in a typhoon and never made it back to the mainland. The different habit meant they had to find different nest materials and ponds and foods. Some survived and some died. The survivors had things about them that made them adapt better to their new environment.)

The changes are tiny with every new generation breeding in that new place.

But the females didn't wake up pregnant and give birth to something that was halfway between two species. It was little cumulative changes over time.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   


Yes, in a sense, But not the Atlantians - for it was many of the Lumerians who were coming from Marduk (Ma-R-Duc), which was destroyed billions of years ago and now circles the sun as the Great Belt we see in between Jupiter and Mars

Listen Buddy
i don't have any descendants on Lumeria or anywhere else no matter what you or the child support agency says
and the rumours that I have been destroyed are greatly exaggerated
I do however own a great belt but its not between Jupiter and Mars its in my bedroom
i use it when i'm weight training
OK




You must be a genetisis

No I'm a human being descended from an ape ancestor


So does this mean when a chromozone splits then it just stays dormant inside a person until that person bears a child then the one part of the split chromozone is passed onto that child making that child a new breed of human?

there are new breeds of Humans all over the world right now
ever seen a girl with unusual coloured eyes
or a guy with extra long fingers
if you look around you you'll soon notice that none of us are the same
except maybe for those freaky twins who finish each others sentences
but none of these new variants is likely to lead to anyone in particular producing more offspring better equipped to pass on their genes to their children because we no longer adapt to nature
we now adapt nature to us
so any new variant of the species is going to have to be pretty special
and with the way technology and genetics is going the next breed of human won't be born to natural parents
it will be bred in a lab somewhere
if indeed it hasn't already



[edit on 24-9-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StariSo does this mean when a chromozone splits then it just stays dormant inside a person until that person bears a child then the one part of the split chromozone is passed onto that child making that child a new breed of human?

No, your chromosomes are actively working away inside the cell (they're "unraveled" into things called "chromatin" in the nucleus when they're not splitting and making new cells.) Each chromosome does a lot of different things, from making "parts" to working during cell division:
www.accessexcellence.org...



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin
I'm reading Fingerprints of the Gods by the same guy right now.


I really liked that book, but alot of people here claim that Graham Hancock wasn't completely truthful in his writings. I have not read anything to make me believe this.

Harte did provide some source links and I will provide them again for you and you can make up your own mind.

jcolavito.tripod.com...

www.grahamhancock.com...

www.intersurf.com...

I personally enjoyed reading his books and I hope you do to.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
The different habit meant they had to find different nest materials and ponds and foods. Some survived and some died. The survivors had things about them that made them adapt better to their new environment.)


But wouldn't that be adapting to their new environment? Not evolving into something new.


Originally posted by Byrd
The changes are tiny with every new generation breeding in that new place.


And they would of had to adapt as well.


Originally posted by Marduk
but none of these new variants is likely to lead to anyone in particular producing more offspring better equipped to pass on their genes to their children because we no longer adapt to nature we now adapt nature to us


My point exactly, humans adapted to their surroundings for millions of years. It's like when you get cold you cover up.. it isn't because our brains got bigger and we decided we needed to wear clothes.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Listen Buddy
i don't have any descendants on Lumeria or anywhere else no matter what you or the child support agency says and the rumours that I have been destroyed are greatly exaggerated I do however own a great belt but its not between Jupiter and Mars its in my bedroom i use it when i'm weight training. OK


*Tilts his fingers together like Mr. Burns* " Yeesss, and we have planned it so that we may meet once again over a whey and creatine drink!"



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   


it isn't because our brains got bigger and we decided we needed to wear clothes.

no its because just after we moved north from a lovely country with a decent daytime temperature it got cold all of a sudden and because we had big brains we realised that putting something warm on would be a damn fine idea and no
I'm not talking about fig leaves.

no talking snake or God driving anyone around had anytyhing to do with it



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Byrd
The different habit meant they had to find different nest materials and ponds and foods. Some survived and some died. The survivors had things about them that made them adapt better to their new environment.)


But wouldn't that be adapting to their new environment? Not evolving into something new.


Generally, yes - probably.

Specifically though, there would be several variations of these animals, all within the same species, that may or may not be better able to do this adapting. Bigger feet, slightly different color plumage, etc. These differences are genetic, and if any of them increase a particular individual's (or individuals' - could be "family members" with similar genes) "survivability" (meaning "give him more time to mate more often thus passing the genetic heritage to the next generation"), then those particular genes from those better -surviving individuals will spread through the population fairly quickly, due to the individuals without those genes being out-reproduced by the ones with the genes. This could happen for many reasons that could vary from slightly longer necks that can more easily reach vegetation on particularly abundant and nourishing flora in the new environment, to larger webbing on the feet allowing slightly faster swimming (you don't have to be faster than the dingo, just faster than the other guy trying to get away from the dingo,) to a color variation that slightly better matches the new environs, to a larger sex organ that attracts the ladies (I fear that Marduk overcompensates for the lack of this latter variation!!
Kidding Mard!!)


Originally posted by Marduk
but none of these new variants is likely to lead to anyone in particular producing more offspring better equipped to pass on their genes to their children because we no longer adapt to nature we now adapt nature to us


The things that could increase our survivability these days pertain to people that are usually past child-bearing age. Today a handy mutation to have would be to be immune to cancer, but most people that die of cancer do so after they have already polluted our gene pool with those darn "not immune to cancer" genes, thus keeping Mankind (and Womankind) down. No more "survival - based" evolution for us!


Originally posted by StariMy point exactly, humans adapted to their surroundings for millions of years. It's like when you get cold you cover up.. it isn't because our brains got bigger and we decided we needed to wear clothes.

No, the brains got bigger first. That had to do with increased survivability as well. Think about it (wait a minute - that's a good example!)

Without implying that a bigger brain necessarily equates to more intelligence (it may or may not):

Bigger brain = better communication (larger speech center - more talking) = better organization = more meat (hunting) = more babies.

Bigger brain = better eyesight = faster identification of the sabretooth over there = less food for Tigger = more babies.

Or to boil it down:
Bigger brain = more babies.

Harte



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The new book by science fiction author Whitley Strieber, The Grays, presents an interesting alternative explanation of the origin of the Atlanteans:

The Grays, published 2006, by Tor Books



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
neat thread, mirrors some of my own thinking. No one seems to see this the way I do, but I'll say it here too:
the CHALLENGER COLUMBIA ENDEAVOURs for the DISCOVERY of ATLANTIS



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Ok then, here is this idea. If evolution is real and it is slow in progression and scientist guess that our supposed ancestors were ape like and that means they had lot's more body hair than we do now. Then why on Earth, pardon the pun, do we not have body hair all over us? Especially for the families that live in Alaska? Those families have been there for many many generations.

From what I have been reading here you guys are telling me that evolution is in progress to make a human better. It also helps people to adapt to their surroundings. If this is true then can you please explain why we do not have body hair all over our bodies? Cause if what you are saying is true then we should all be hairy people.

And before you say that our brains grew and we learned to make clothes to wear so we no longer need hair to keep warm, what about dogs and cats? They have been domesticated for many many thousands of years but they still have hair. Although evolution is supposed to take many millions of years shouldn't we have seen some kinds of changes in our animals?


Originally posted by Harte
The things that could increase our survivability these days pertain to people that are usually past child-bearing age. Today a handy mutation to have would be to be immune to cancer, but most people that die of cancer do so after they have already polluted our gene pool with those darn "not immune to cancer" genes, thus keeping Mankind (and Womankind) down. No more "survival - based" evolution for us!


So are you saying that people are no longer evolving? Then how could that be? Who shut off the gene that told our bodies we no longer need to evolve, we are perfect? I know I am not perfect and everyone I have ever met is not perfect, so why wouldn't humanity still be evolving? Did I read what you said wrong?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   


If this is true then can you please explain why we do not have body hair all over our bodies?

because women thesedays do not generally find exceptionally hairy men much much much better looking than unhairy men
as a result there are not lots and lots of hairy children
so the hairy man gene is in short supply. now if it were neccesary for men to be hairy to survive cold weather so that the hairier the man the more babies he would have this would not be the case
but it isn't
so they aren't
People in Alaska have clothing you know. theres no competition amongst men for resources (well maybe hot looking women are in short supply) which hairy men have an advantage to winning and as a result the gene pool is progressing from an average population of contributors


Did I read what you said wrong?

it seems so
is this just a general disability to understand the plain truths that are around you Stari or are you trying to be obtuse
its not winning you a fan club either way





posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
...Then why on Earth, pardon the pun, do we not have body hair all over us? Especially for the families that live in Alaska? Those families have been there for many many generations.


The answer to all of these kinds of questions is "Does more body hair (or whatever) = more babies?"


Originally posted by StariFrom what I have been reading here you guys are telling me that evolution is in progress to make a human better.

"Better" is a value judgement. Better under certain circumstances is the way to look at it. Evolution absolutely does not progress from "Primitive" to "Advanced," though I know that's the way lots of people, even scientists, put it. It's just a matter of being better able to survive under a given set of circumstances. For example, the Dodo evolved for a reason - it was better equipped to survive the the circumstances under which it's immediate predecessor(s) found themselves. But then the circumstances changed, didn't they? One could say that the Dodo was more "advanced" than other birds, at least for the ecological niche it occupied. But let's face it, the Dodo was completely unable to adapt to new, quick changes that occurred when hungry Europeans came across them!


Originally posted by Stari It also helps people to adapt to their surroundings. If this is true then can you please explain why we do not have body hair all over our bodies? Cause if what you are saying is true then we should all be hairy people.

Do you like excess body hair? If not, then you can find the answer within yourself. If so, then if there were a lot more people like you, there'd be a lot more hair on us.


Originally posted by StariAnd before you say that our brains grew and we learned to make clothes to wear so we no longer need hair to keep warm, what about dogs and cats? They have been domesticated for many many thousands of years but they still have hair. Although evolution is supposed to take many millions of years shouldn't we have seen some kinds of changes in our animals?
The genetics of domesticated animals are under the control of the domesticators, by and large. If the domesticators desire hairless dogs and cats, then they will breed for this characteristic. I'm sure you are aware that this has already been done, right?

In the wild, there are certainly still variations within the same species of the amount of hair present in the fur of that species. This characteristic hasn't been selected for by changing circumstances in most cases, but it has for some, hasn't it? I mean, ever heard of the Wooly Mammoth? Now, ever seen an extremely hairy Elephant? Do you know that the Indian Elephant has a great deal less hair than the African one (or maybe I have that backwards - whatever)?


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Harte
The things that could increase our survivability these days pertain to people that are usually past child-bearing age. Today a handy mutation to have would be to be immune to cancer, but most people that die of cancer do so after they have already polluted our gene pool with those darn "not immune to cancer" genes, thus keeping Mankind (and Womankind) down. No more "survival - based" evolution for us!


So are you saying that people are no longer evolving? Then how could that be? Who shut off the gene that told our bodies we no longer need to evolve, we are perfect? I know I am not perfect and everyone I have ever met is not perfect, so why wouldn't humanity still be evolving? Did I read what you said wrong?


There is no gene in our bodies that tells us we "need to evolve" that can be shut off. Also, evolution is a ridiculously random thing and absolutely in no way can ever, possibly, lead to "perfection" in any form at all. In fact, in every single case, it leads to extinction.

What I said is that we no longer evolve based purely on reproduction through better survivability. There are other mechanisms of evolution, however. Do you know that a virus can insert genetic code into the very DNA of it's host?

Anyway, if evolution has ceased in humans, it's a relatively recent thing, on the geological timescale, because there is evidence, found in our own DNA, that humans were still evolving as little as 5,000 years ago :
www.physorg.com...

Of course, times were quite different way back then.

Harte

[edit on 9/26/2006 by Harte]

[edit on 9/26/2006 by Harte]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join