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.

 

Gene re-arrangemnt due to "natural selection"?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
It may not have an apparent function or one that scientists can see, but if someone had some of their "junk" DNA taken out...... to a being from higher levels or dimensions who can see much more than a scientist can see, like if a buddha looked at the person, they would see that they are no longer a human being and that many essential substances and energies would be missing from their body and from their conciousness as well.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Hollywood11]




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


No. I don't know where you got that idea from, but no. Junk DNA contributes nothing, they come from our ancient ancestors who actually used them. For instance the gene for the ability to hibernate is in our genome, but its 'off'. Other things like 'super hairiness' is in there (and it still works!) but it's normally off too.

Most of it has mutated (neutrally) and will no longer function if we tried to turn it one. Junk DNA is like the cumulation of all the things that we have been.

If we took the 90% of DNA that contributes nothing from an embryo then it will not have the standard sized genome, but it will still be human.


You also think for some reason that DNA has some kind of multidimensional function. How the hell could Natural Selection have programmed DNA with a multidimensional function?!

[edit on 9/25/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Basically what humans are, are every animal put together plus a little bit more, but that doesn't mean we derived from animals.

Natural selection does not guide genetics, much higher forces do.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Basically what humans are, are every animal put together plus a little bit more, but that doesn't mean we derived from animals.






You don't have a clue do you. Can you possibly back that statement up?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Certainly your textbooks and societal programming has lead you way off track from what really happened. If you are confused about what the real origins of the human race are Edgar Cayce can make it more clear for you-
www.shellac.org...
www.dreamscape.com...

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Even if we did come from Atlantis, that would not mean that our genetic information is bits of every animal plus a bit more. The human genome is a code a couple of billion base pairs long, small enough to fit on a memory card. The amazing thing is that mitochondria DNA and the Y chromosome track our travelling around the world in the past- hundreds of thousands of years. Geneticists have traced us back to central Africa, this has been heavily documented. The sunken continent appears to be nothing but a fable told by Plato just to make a point about politics.

But hay, I live on a sunken continent, Zealandia. Maybe I'm an Atlantian.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Humans did not matertialize in Africa, only some did, those of the black people. But those of the red, yellow, brown, and white materialized and hardened into the material plane elsewhere. The Red race materialized in Atlantis, however, even before humans were fully material and were still more like angelic semi-etheric beings Atlantis already existed.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
No they didn't. As humans moved out of Africa they changed as they adapted to the new environments. People got white as they moved into Europe.

Our genetics show that we all are Africans.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Here genetics show that the origins of the Basques is Atlantis and completely in line with Edgar Cayce's readings, not evolving from ape-men in Africa-
www.edgarcayce.org...


More about why DNA doesn't prove humans came from africa, only some.
www.sciencenews.org...

Million year old beta globin gene found only in Asians-
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

Archaic African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans.
R M Harding, S M Fullerton, R C Griffiths, J Bond, M J Cox, J A Schneider, D S Moulin, and J B Clegg
MRC Molecular Haematology Unit, Institute of Molecular Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. rharding@vax.ox.ac.uk

Characteristically Asian ancestry is estimated to be older than 200,000 years, suggesting that the ancestral hominid population at this time was widely dispersed across Africa and Asia. Patterns of beta-globin diversity suggest extensive worldwide late Pleistocene gene flow and are not easily reconciled with a unidirectional migration out of Africa 100,000 years ago and total replacement of archaic populations in Asia.


So we are expected to believe that Asians spit off from Africans around the same time as the African people came into existence. This is highly unlikely and doesn't really fit well with the old conventional migration theories or "out of africa theory".


also
www.sciencenews.org...

Templeton's views on human evolution spark heated debate. But reservations about the power of current DNA studies to describe human evolution are not uncommon.

Mountain, who views accumulated genetic evidence as moderately supportive of a recent African origin for humanity, still sees a pressing need for improved analyses of large DNA samples.

"Far too often, anthropological geneticists draw conclusions about human evolutionary history without testing hypotheses or exploring alternate models," Mountain remarks. "In some cases, this is because data are insufficient. In other cases, the immediate impression generated by the data blinds us to alternatives."

Hammer, who remains undecided on how modern humans evolved, suspects that investigators will increasingly experiment with statistical formulas for weighing the contributions of natural selection and other factors to DNA diversity.

"Over the next 10 years, more complex genetic models will emerge," Hammer says. "DNA research has not solved the mystery of human origins."




[edit on 8-10-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Why are you trying to justify your claims with 10+ year old articles still? I explained to you, I thought very clearly, that we've moved past this and what is considered common knowledge today is significantly beyond the hypothesis's stated in your old articles.

Why do you try and knowingly mislead people rather than learning how evolution occurs, to the best of our knowledge, today? It's not that difficult and you shouldn't find the ideas that intimidating. As with your other thread, either you haven't read the articles you've posted entirely or more likely you don't understand the basics and have no context to evaluate what you present.

These studies were done long before the human genome project, in other words, irrelevant and misleading.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Research studies showing anomolies not consistent with evolution theory are not invalid just because they are 10 years old.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


They are invalid when more recent more accurate research demonstrates that they are wrong. You can't just pick and choose what research you use to forward you're point, it needs to be current and scientific.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
No one has shown that any study invalidates the studies i linked to, they may have claimed it, but they did not prove it or show it.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


You realise that Edgar Cayce was a quack don't you. He speculated about a mythical island that never existed.

A line from the bottom of the article from edgarcayce.org says:


The editors of Ancient Mysteries, along with Jon Van Auken, have hypothesized that the X haplogroup may be the genetic link to the ancient atlanteans.


I don't recall Ancient Mysteries ever being a scientific journal. Also a hypothesis doesn't count as evidence, as it's just an idea or opinion.

Right at the top of the Science News Online page reads "February 6, 1999". So it's immediately outdated.

Here's a page from 2001 that goes for "Out of Africa"
www.trussel.com...
2004
www.sciencedaily.com...
2007
www.sciencedaily.com...

In that last one:


The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.


Here's another from 2007:
www.sciencedaily.com...

Wherein it says:


Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.


Wiki page has some every useful information

A 1997 article, even if it was a scientific source is not scientific anymore. You need CURRENT scientific sources.

Any article dated significantly earlier than 2003 and the completion of the Human Genome Project is too old to be current and they couldn't possibly been based on the best evidence anymore.



FAIL




[edit on 10/10/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
In that last one:


The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.




This is a laughable claim.

40,000 year old footprints in mexico cause evolutionists to scramble to make desperate and irrational exuses.
www.ljmu.ac.uk...
www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk...

lol! "evolutionists uhappy with results!" Notice how they claim, "it must be either a whole magnitude wrong and they must be way older, or they're not footprints at all then probably, or this or that excuse, but it can't be what the dating methods indicated!" Lol @ scrambling to make excuses and reinterpret things
www.answersingenesis.org...



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
More about why Native americans did not evolve out of Siberians and why the fact that Black people originated in Africa has caused confusion to scientists and made them believe all people originated in Africa
www.redicecreations.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Here's a page from 2001 that goes for "Out of Africa"
www.trussel.com...
2004
www.sciencedaily.com...
2007
www.sciencedaily.com...



All those articles prove is that human beings did not evolve out of Homo Erectus or Cro-Magnon apes. It proves that man is original and did not derive from any other species, not that all humans came from Africans. The fact that some people originated in Africa has created the illusion that all human came from Africa.


[edit on 10-10-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hollywood11
40,000 year old footprints in mexico cause evolutionists to scramble to make desperate and irrational exuses.
www.ljmu.ac.uk...
www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk...


Yes, I saw these articles back in 2005. I must say that I'm unimpressed.

Article 1:

Scientists have unearthed human footprints in central Mexico which they claim are around 40,000 years old, shattering previous theories on how humans first colonised the Americas.

The researchers hope that their preliminary findings will eventually help shed light on one of the most contentious debates in American history: who was there first and how did they get there?


Article 2:

The timing, route and origin of the first colonisation of the Americas remains one of the most contentious topics in human evolution. Experts from many disciplines are searching for the answers to three seemingly straightforward questions:

• From where did the first people come?
• How did they enter the Americas?
• When did they arrive?


'fraid to say that this find hasn't any evolutionary bearing, but rather anthropology.

The origins of the first Americans are still hotly debated by geneticists and anthropologists. Some archaeologists believe the first Americans did not come from north-eastern Asia, but from Europe, crossing the North Atlantic Ocean by boat. No ancient boats have been found, but proponents note that modern humans travelled by boat to Australia perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. Archaeological support for this theory is based mainly on similarities observed between Clovis artefacts and those of the Solutrean Period of prehistoric Europe. There have also been numerous discoveries lately that do in fact push the first settlement of America backwards to around 50,000 years ago, not the least of which is the native Americans genetic origins in Asia.

Here's a book on 40,000 year old American antiquity. The hypothesis that humans were in America that long ago is not new, but it's never had much evidence, but now with these new finds, it's being reconsidered as a reality.

But again, all of this has no evolutionary bearing. It's just anthropology.


www.answersingenesis.org...


Didn't think you were a creationist? Why would you use an extremely biased source that misrepresents and twists the facts?


All those articles prove is that human beings did not evolve out of Homo Erectus or Cro-Magnon apes. It proves that man is original and did not derive from any other species, not that all humans came from Africans. The fact that some people originated in Africa has created the illusion that all human came from Africa.


Show where they "prove" humans did not evolve from H Erectus or Cro Magnon? I combed through the articles and found no such evidence. You need to stop misrepresenting the facts, you're no better than the creationists.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by Good Wolf]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join