It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


my theory on "monsters"

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:47 AM
i don't know if this has been discussed but i believe that everything thats living can have its DNA altered(dont know if thats the right word) , so why not believe that these things we call monsters might just be genetically deformed animals?
isnt this how new species are discovered nowadays isnt it? they are just your ordinary living lifeforms that your used to but with just a mixup in DNA

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:30 AM
Very true, in fact some gorilla species weren't discovered until the 50s or 60s. So what to say that we just haven't discovered them yet?

DNA is weird though, on monster quest, they found DNA from a an apparant bigfoot that was in between human and primate DNA, and the chances of that being human or ape DNA was very slim indeed.

I like your theory, would probably work.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:22 AM

Originally posted by TheOmen
DNA is weird though, on monster quest, they found DNA from a an apparant bigfoot that was in between human and primate DNA, and the chances of that being human or ape DNA was very slim indeed.

The only information I've seen on this declared that the DNA difference was as much as a human from a human...

Anyway, of course its always possible. In fact its quite likely. Not all monsters are similar to animals though.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 05:27 AM

Watch this then.

This is the proof (in my opinion) that there is a "mutant" human/ape on the loose.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by TheOmen]

Mod Edit- Fix video link

[edit on 31/1/2008 by Sauron]

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:45 AM
Natural mutation in DNA is caused by evolution. Happens in every animal.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by TheOmen

A single nucleotide polymorphism, or SNP (pronounced snip), is a DNA sequence variation occurring when a single nucleotide - A, T, C, or G - in the genome (or other shared sequence) differs between members of a species

What he says right there in the video: Its human DNA. Or well, he says its primate in plain English for some reason but the scientific words says human from what my admittedly non-DNA-skilled brain can tell.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by merka]

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:06 AM
reply to post by merka

But he also says that the SNP is one shared with apes.

So that has to mean some sort of hybrid being.

Maybe bigfoot is just the ancestor of human/ape parents?

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 02:11 AM
Its not just that video though,
Take a look at this

In early April, 2001, British scientists made a startling announcement. After examining the DNA in a strand of hair thought to come from a Yeti - the Asian cousin to America's Bigfoot - scientists were unable to identify it as coming from any known animal.

But the DNA test has proved that there is an unknown creature out there. What kind of creature that hair belongs to is unknown, but when one considers it along with the footprints and the eyewitness sightings, the case for a previously unknown ape or hominid is strengthened. The DNA is likely to inspire new expeditions to find the Yeti.

Courtesy of here

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 03:01 AM
I wish there were more "monsters." Of course there are undiscovered creatures that live among us. Leave it to the human race to capture one, waterboard it and make it tell us where the rest are at. Man is hell bent on destruction of anything that doesn't meet his/her definition of civilised. It is a shame.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:14 AM
Just wanted to say...learn genetics, and you'll see this isnt possible. There are no scientific examples of mutations causing "monsters" or being capable of doing so. Mutation renders the DNA faulty, and thus inoperable. HOX mutations can misplace body parts, but they are non-functional as they are developmental errors without a working substructure. Adaptive changes through natural selection can change form, but only through changing the prominence of various alleles. (Think breeds of dogs.) Basically, your theory isnt possible.

If you want to argue that a series of mutations might cause eventual function monsters through some process, keep in mind information theory. Organized information (new, functional DNA) doesnt not arise from nothing. Noise does not become signal. Its great for sci-fi, but its not actual science.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by TheOmen

A hybrid due to a single DNA difference? HA! Then my sister is probably a primate hybrid. Come to think of it, it makes sense

The difference between humans and primates are more in the line of hundreds of thosuands DNA differences... And that's still a relativly low percentage.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by merka

Ok, I think I will not discuss this with anymore as you really don't get it.
Nevermind eh!

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:07 PM
I can certainly buy the idea of some 'monsters' being mutations of a known species. Well, not so much a 'mutation' by definition, but a condition similar
to gigantism or an altering of genetic material.
Lake monsters=reptile
Giant birds=avian

The ones that freak me out are the Jersey Devil and the Mothman. What the
hell are those? Both have been seen by many people.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by lw2525]

new topics

top topics


log in