It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# DNA evidence of ET?

page: 6
8
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

That is an abuse of Mathematics. Because you still do not have a constant to observe from. No constant, no science. You need alien dna to observe from and prove you are a 99.99% match. The only thing you can prove is that you have unique DNA. That you're DNA does not match 99.99% of other humans. Nothing more, nothing less. FYI, that's the case for every human being.

What is an abuse of Math? Bayesian Inference? Or is this all just your under educated, under experienced opinion?

I had some issues figuring out just what, exactly you were talking about with your "constant". It seems that you are having a little trouble separating high school science from real science. In real science, we may sometimes try to discover something that is unknown, when we do, you "constant" can take on some rather "strange" forms. Like this case.

No there is no "known DNA" sample, its not needed, and no there is no property value that has been fixed, per sae. However, there is a constant involved in the protocols for analyzing the samples we collect.

In this case, it is the DNA Primers that are used to determine the actual sequenct of said DNA molecules. The menner in which we analyze the results of the DNA sequencing, The language we use to probe the databases, and extract useful data. These things are constants.

No I don't need alien DNA. Unless we are attempting to determing my exact species. I only need to illustrate that my DNA is very unlikely to occur in a Terrestrial Human, which I think I have done. Does that leave some small amount of "room" for me to be Human? Yes, however, consider the comedy of errors and mutations required to do so. The probabilities of this are astronomicaly small. Actually on the order of my original guess at the probability of an alien being on Earth in the first place ... I place the original odds at 7.0E-15. Thats is about one chance in the population of 1,000 ,000 Earths. And as it turns out, that is also the aproximate probability that I'm Human. Go figure.

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you want it, the probability of me being alien is very high, partially by virtue of the fact that I don't fit into any Human populations. Than there is other data that I have not introduced into this conversation. Personal experience, that while no less valid on a personal level, isn't well suited to a scientific discussion.

Listen, we are working in the real world here, not playing in the classroom, with the schools chemistry set. The real world rules are a bit different. The real world constraints are vastly different. Even your opinion about what ET would be like reflects your lack of experience. Have you ever of this?

"As above, so below; As below, so above"

Do you know who said that, and what it means? Do youhave any aprecation for its meaning? I'm thinking no.

Or, how about this; Why do Humans walk on two legs?

FYI, I spoke with the mods. They said I did win and that your evidence is falsified and under review.

So yea, don't bother lying. You've already been caught red handed.

Well now ... Falsified evidence, thats a reasonable serious charge. Except, I haven't noticed anyone asking for a sample to verify said charges.

But, I hope they do. Then the question of verification of my data will end, and we can move on. You see; the data has no been falsified, not in the least. And, any real attempt to verify my data can only lead to one place. Unless of course one of the labs made an error, but, that will be their problem, if that proves to be the case.

And, just what would I be lying about? I haven't yet, so, I'm not about to start.

See, thats the problem with all the psudo-science and psudo-skeptics. When something doesn't fit into your preconceived world defination, It becomes lies, falshood, and many other "evils". The problem is that we aren't working within your preconceived world, we are working with the real world ... like it or not. We are also not working within a "debunkers" world; you know, the one where if I illustrate that something may be, thus it is.

Why does the constant show numbers like yours? Why is the FST locked at numbers bellow that Europe has? How can you use math that says you are 99.99% sure to be alien if we have no aliens to compare to and the statistical probability of compatibility is basically zero?

Your "constant" doesn't work here. And, even if it did, wouldn't mean much.

Firstly; the individual marker frequencies mean little, you can find these very same markers in other species, and, with the same frequency ranges. So they can't prove "Human".

Secondly; As I have already pointed out, it is the combination of these markers and their corresponding frequency that gives the data substance. Without this combination we have defined nothing except individual markers. You are aware that these markers represent specific substrings within the overall DNA, and that the repeat frequency is how many times that substring repeats? Thus you can see that this is an important property, it goes to the "spelling" of the given genome.

What in the Sam Hill are you going on about FST for? What relevance does the flanking insertation site have to do with any of this? I'm betting, that like me, you have no idea what so ever. At the present we are working with simple DNA sequences, and accepted marker freuqencies.

reply to post by Unity_99

Like I said. "pure blood" is just another way of saying inbred. Inbreds have plenty of mutations. Some theorize most skin pigments humans have was through inbreeding in new environments they were not ready for. If this alien is an inbred, it explains more than just his dna. Which, for all accords, is perfectly human.

Inbred, you mean like Humans? It is a logical fact that any population within a closed system is inbred. You (Humans), and all otherspecies of life on your world are inbred, and it has been going on for 100's of millions of years. Sorry, yo have no point there.

And, yes, one way of looking at my DNA is to say it is Human. But then, so is the DNA from the Aussie trace evidence case. Its all human, or is it?

Again, when DNA or markers get "misplaced" it is worthy of investigation. And here is perhaps the best of all; Until you can provide a mechanism for the markers and DNA to become misplaced, you can not prove it is Human. Only Human like.

Eytharzi Od Oma.

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

What is an abuse of Math? Bayesian Inference? Or is this all just your under educated, under experienced opinion?

Probability junior year highschool math.

I had some issues figuring out just what, exactly you were talking about with your "constant". It seems that you are having a little trouble separating high school science from real science. In real science, we may sometimes try to discover something that is unknown, when we do, you "constant" can take on some rather "strange" forms. Like this case.

No. A constant is a constant. And to state real science needs none is an utterly stupid statement.

There is a simple rule. No Constant, no science.

No there is no "known DNA" sample, its not needed, and no there is no property value that has been fixed, per sae. However, there is a constant involved in the protocols for analyzing the samples we collect.

Yes, you do need alien DNA to compare. You cannot claim what you are without it. Without two examples to compare, you are human.

In this case, it is the DNA Primers that are used to determine the actual sequenct of said DNA molecules. The menner in which we analyze the results of the DNA sequencing, The language we use to probe the databases, and extract useful data. These things are constants.

Only if you are human. You are assuming aliens even have primers. You are assuming they have DNA at all. You are assuming you know it.

Crack science for a crack claim.

No I don't need alien DNA. Unless we are attempting to determing my exact species. I only need to illustrate that my DNA is very unlikely to occur in a Terrestrial Human, which I think I have done. Does that leave some small amount of "room" for me to be Human? Yes, however, consider the comedy of errors and mutations required to do so. The probabilities of this are astronomicaly small. Actually on the order of my original guess at the probability of an alien being on Earth in the first place ... I place the original odds at 7.0E-15. Thats is about one chance in the population of 1,000 ,000 Earths. And as it turns out, that is also the aproximate probability that I'm Human. Go figure.

You need alien DNA to compare with human DNA. No constant, no science.

I could not give a damn what made up crap of species you are weather it be a Dinosaur holding a spear or a gray skinned pin head. No constant, no science.

No matter how small. Your DNA is still human. It is still more probable that your DNA is human than something else.

And see how you are changing your claims. Now you are saying there is room for being human. For all purposes, you're caught lying.

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you want it, the probability of me being alien is very high, partially by virtue of the fact that I don't fit into any Human populations. Than there is other data that I have not introduced into this conversation. Personal experience, that while no less valid on a personal level, isn't well suited to a scientific discussion.

I guess I have to take you to school.

See, the thing about claiming you have alien DNA is that you require alien DNA to compare. No matter how alien yours is, it is still more Human than not. All of your genes are human. We are talking about literally a few dozen genes out of millions.

4*10^18 - 5*10^18 TO be exact.

That means out of a conservative 400,000,000,000,000,000 Genes, only a few dozen are odd.

And you are claiming this makes you human?

Are you joking?

Listen, we are working in the real world here, not playing in the classroom, with the schools chemistry set. The real world rules are a bit different. The real world constraints are vastly different. Even your opinion about what ET would be like reflects your lack of experience. Have you ever of this?

Well listen. You have not had experience with designing new types of dna structures and life forms.

In architecture, some of the things we do is explore non-DNA based life forms to build buildings. Using chemical programming to create structures.

Allow me to show you what we made with nothing more than bacon fat, vinegar, and olive oil.

These critters had no DNA.

We documented these creations and saw presentations by NASA workers and free enterprising construction groups looking to cheapen labor costs.

You can read more about these aliens built on Earth here.

www.wired.com...

I had the privilege of being taught a few lessons by Dr Rachel Armstrong

So do me a favor and don't insult me by saying because I'm younger I don't know more. I'll probably learn more in the next 4 years of my life than you have in the whole of your 60.

Life does not need DNA. Life can come about any way it damn well wants. Life can be infinite in its combinations.

The fact is I DO have skills with alien DNA and otherwise. because we are building and designing them right here on Earth now.

Firstly; the individual marker frequencies mean little, you can find these very same markers in other species, and, with the same frequency ranges. So they can't prove "Human".

Then your case is dead. If it can be done with other humans and it is your proof, it is not proof. Constant and variable match. You are human.

Secondly; As I have already pointed out, it is the combination of these markers and their corresponding frequency that gives the data substance. Without this combination we have defined nothing except individual markers. You are aware that these markers represent specific substrings within the overall DNA, and that the repeat frequency is how many times that substring repeats? Thus you can see that this is an important property, it goes to the "spelling" of the given genome.

You are aware that I used a constant and your same method and got the same results, right? Because that disproves your point.

Also, what do you think the chances are that aliens have the same primers or series of codes? Quite low.

What in the Sam Hill are you going on about FST for? What relevance does the flanking insertation site have to do with any of this? I'm betting, that like me, you have no idea what so ever. At the present we are working with simple DNA sequences, and accepted marker freuqencies.

Europe has a FST of 1.2 or so. It can't be put at that level to get good results. plop, there goes your proof.

When markers get misplaced, DNA got screwed up. I'm missing a few genes. I have a few extra. We all do. But I'm probably more mutant than you. Still human though.

Like I've been saying. No constant, no science. Crack science, crack claim.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

What is an abuse of Math? Bayesian Inference? Or is this all just your under educated, under experienced opinion?

Probability junior year highschool math.

LOL. Wow, junior year in highschool, Now there is some education! Don't make me laugh kid. The math and science you learn in highschool is "math and science for babies", though actually, in my peoples society, thats more like infants.

Do you have any idea of the levels either of these subjects ascends to once you have graduated college and actually have an education?

No. A constant is a constant. And to state real science needs none is an utterly stupid statement.

There is a simple rule. No Constant, no science.

You got a source for this hard and fast rule? No source, no statement.

And just what is a constant anyway? Some immutable data object? Or, perhaps it could also be an immutable protocol for analyzing data. Course, if it were immutable (the protocol) then you wouldn't get very far with it, and the discovery would stop.

I'm sorry, but, your "constant" simply isn't needed to properly analyze the data. Besides, I did use standard databases with the DNA of 100,000's of humans, so why would you want to have any duplicates of data elements? Or perhaps you want me to say "distinct" in all my queries.

Duplication of data usually skews the results, depending on how many duplicates there are. Hence the ability to add "distinct" to the query. This has been know for longer than you have lived.

Yes, you do need alien DNA to compare. You cannot claim what you are without it. Without two examples to compare, you are human.

I only need alien DNA if I want to find which alien species I am, and then, yes, I would need a sample of that species DNA. But, I'm not trying to identify my species, I'm trying to show that I don't belong to that sub-set of "universal" DNA known as "Human" (specificaly Terrestrial)

-continued-

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what a constant is, then, mod's forgive me, but you're fool.

Probability is simple. Don't make it look special.

The definition of an infant is someone who is developing. If your infants learn this, then why is it you don't know what a constant is?

I'm sorry, but, your "constant" simply isn't needed to properly analyze the data. Besides, I did use standard databases with the DNA of 100,000's of humans, so why would you want to have any duplicates of data elements? Or perhaps you want me to say "distinct" in all my queries.

Again, crack science.

Duplication of data usually skews the results, depending on how many duplicates there are. Hence the ability to add "distinct" to the query. This has been know for longer than you have lived.

Crack science. Duplicates better your odds. More subjects, more confirmation.

I only need alien DNA if I want to find which alien species I am, and then, yes, I would need a sample of that species DNA. But, I'm not trying to identify my species, I'm trying to show that I don't belong to that sub-set of "universal" DNA known as "Human" (specificaly Terrestrial)

No.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

video link fixed above.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:52 PM
continued from previous

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Yes, you do need alien DNA to compare. You cannot claim what you are without it. Without two examples to compare, you are human.

Again, I am comparing my DNA to 100,00's of Human DNA test results. That will, for the time being, provide all the checks we need.

Only if you are human. You are assuming aliens even have primers. You are assuming they have DNA at all. You are assuming you know it.

You really should do some reading, I'm just a software engineer, but, it seem I know a bit more about DNA than you. Your statements about primers here are way off base.

And, I am assuming nothing! Aliens have primers, aliens have DNA, with only a few exceptions, and, in a sort of unprovable way, yes I do know a few thing about alien DNA.

No matter how small. Your DNA is still human. It is still more probable that your DNA is human than something else.

And see how you are changing your claims. Now you are saying there is room for being human. For all purposes, you're caught lying.

Yes, my DNA "looks" Human in many respects, but, as I have already pointed out, the same DNA could easily apply to a Chimpanzee. What you think is uniquely human, simply may not be. You don't know what is uniquely human, so yo assume that if it "looks" human it is. I'll go down to the Dallas Zoo and tell "Bonzo" he is human, a human has proven it and he should get a good attorney and sue for false imprisonment.

See, the thing about claiming you have alien DNA is that you require alien DNA to compare. No matter how alien yours is, it is still more Human than not. All of your genes are human. We are talking about literally a few dozen genes out of millions.

4*10^18 - 5*10^18 TO be exact.

Improper notation here. And since when did 1.0E18 only equal millions? By the way, they're not that many genes in the Human genome. Its on the order of 300 million or so.

That means out of a conservative 400,000,000,000,000,000 Genes, only a few dozen are odd.

And you are claiming this makes you human?

Are you joking?

Wow ... I should publish this. Now you are saying that I'm not Human? So which is it?

Seriously though, what if the number was more on the order of say 10 million differences, what would you say to that. Now, please don't go thinking that I have evidence of that. That kind of evidence is very expensive, and I doubt I'll ever afford it, but, IF I did?

Well listen. You have not had experience with designing new types of dna structures and life forms.

In architecture, some of the things we do is explore non-DNA based life forms to build buildings. Using chemical programming to create structures.

Allow me to show you what we made with nothing more than bacon fat, vinegar, and olive oil.

Ahhh, but you are not an architect. You are some kid barely out of highschool, by your own admission. Further, it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what it that I do. I've already made reference to being a software engineer, but, do you know what we do? There are those who would call, more advanced and experienced software engineers (not unlike me)l Software/data architects. You see that is what we do, we design and determine the structure of applications and the data that supports them.

So do me a favor and don't insult me by saying because I'm younger I don't know more. I'll probably learn more in the next 4 years of my life than you have in the whole of your 60.

Life does not need DNA. Life can come about any way it damn well wants. Life can be infinite in its combinations.

Thats not an insult sir, it is a simple fact, like it or not. You have not had the opportunity to learn or experience as much as I have.

As for learning mor in your next 4 years than me in 60; I seriously doubt it. Remember it is the old ones like myself that discovered what you will be learning in the next 4. Though to be sure, if my life ends here on this Earth, when you reach 63, you will know vastly more that I do right now. But, when that day arrives, please remember where you came from, and try to go easy on the 20 year old you are conversing with. Remember that he is full of answers, and knows none of the questions.

The fact is I DO have skills with alien DNA and otherwise. because we are building and designing them right here on Earth now.

No, you don't. If it is being built here on Earth, then it is not alien. And the DNA you think you have is still very terrestrial.

You are aware that I used a constant and your same method and got the same results, right? Because that disproves your point.

Also, what do you think the chances are that aliens have the same primers or series of codes? Quite low.

Actually, I seriously doubt that. Care to verify your work? Share with us the set of markers and their values so that we may verify youe expiement.

In an universe with infinite possibilities, the probability of 1 in a googleplex is a done deal, a sure thing!

Europe has a FST of 1.2 or so. It can't be put at that level to get good results. plop, there goes your proof.

Source?

I should tell you to take that up with the Research Biologists that originally put these databases together, because, you are saying they don't know what they are doing.

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

Yes, I know what a constant is. I even use them from time to time when implementing applications.

What I'm saying is that you are misusing the concept. A constant is not required for scientific discovery, nor the "scientific proceedure".

I'm thinking you need to take a few more classes in chemistry or physics, perhaps then you will begin to understand.

As it is you are loosing your argument, partly because you fail to follow the first and perhaps most important principal; "Keep it simple". Youlike many others your age seem to think that if you import more stuff into your argument you make it better, stronger ... not true. In fact, you can, and are in the process of, destroying it.

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Again, I am comparing my DNA to 100,00's of Human DNA test results. That will, for the time being, provide all the checks we need.

100,000 implies less than 1 million. That's less than 1% of the human race.

You have once again failed in probability and statistics.

Try telling the USDA to pass with only testing 1% of a company's products.

You really should do some reading, I'm just a software engineer, but, it seem I know a bit more about DNA than you. Your statements about primers here are way off base. And, I am assuming nothing! Aliens have primers, aliens have DNA, with only a few exceptions, and, in a sort of unprovable way, yes I do know a few thing about alien DNA.

Aliens do not need primers. What if your dna was a tower of silobenzene? Or something similar?

pubs.acs.org...

Then you don't have primers. Because you don't have a ladder.

Sorry. Someone here knows biology and it is not you.

Yes, my DNA "looks" Human in many respects, but, as I have already pointed out, the same DNA could easily apply to a Chimpanzee. What you think is uniquely human, simply may not be. You don't know what is uniquely human, so yo assume that if it "looks" human it is. I'll go down to the Dallas Zoo and tell "Bonzo" he is human, a human has proven it and he should get a good attorney and sue for false imprisonment.

crap logic. Apes have a 3% difference. You do not. You have the same number of chromosomes and the same number of genes and can therefore mate with humans at the very least artificially.

Improper notation here. And since when did 1.0E18 only equal millions? By the way, they're not that many genes in the Human genome. Its on the order of 300 million or so.

Strawman fallacy. Because I stated a number then reinforced it with more accurate ones.

The human being only has 20,000 unique genes. If you have the whole genes, then that means you have the evolutionary left overs of Earth, further reinforcing that you are human. Sorry, but Roddenberry's parallel Earth theory is not true.

Forgivement.

4*10^18 - 5*10^18 Not including mitochondria DNA and bacteria DNA 20,000 - 25,000 unique genes 2 copies per cell with around 100 trillion human cells in the body

So then lets do some math

98% of genes do not encode proteins (IE, make us look how we look)

20,000/.02 = 1000000

That means that out of 1 million genes, you are talking about a few dozen.

The math still supports you are human.

Unless you want to talk about cloned Earths. In which case you're going into the dumb zone of sci fi.

Ahhh, but you are not an architect. You are some kid barely out of highschool, by your own admission. Further, it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what it that I do. I've already made reference to being a software engineer, but, do you know what we do? There are those who would call, more advanced and experienced software engineers (not unlike me)l Software/data architects. You see that is what we do, we design and determine the structure of applications and the data that supports them.

Architect major. We are architects once we enter the program. We don't work for years after education due to state regulation. Understand what you're talking about before you assume.

No, you don't. If it is being built here on Earth, then it is not alien. And the DNA you think you have is still very terrestrial.

That's extraterrestrial. Alien is anything not part of the Earth evolutionary tree.

I gave you sources for the protocells. You can ignore it if you want.

Source? I should tell you to take that up with the Research Biologists that originally put these databases together, because, you are saying they don't know what they are doing.

en.wikipedia.org...
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

You need a constant for the work you are doing.

If you think otherwise, you are being dumb.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

100,000 implies less than 1 million. That's less than 1% of the human race.

You have once again failed in probability and statistics.

Try telling the USDA to pass with only testing 1% of a company's products.

Sorry, I've not failed anything, and it appears that you with your experience handicap aren't doing so well. But, that is something else.

Oh, and the USDA, and several other alphabets get by with that little of actual testing, why do you think they have recalls? Product not tested until after release. Shouldn't happen, but does.

Aliens do not need primers. What if your dna was a tower of silobenzene? Or something similar?

Well, we're not playing "what if" here. And, if my DNA was a tower of silobenzene, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

crap logic. Apes have a 3% difference. You do not. You have the same number of chromosomes and the same number of genes and can therefore mate with humans at the very least artificially.

You are making assumpsions here. You have no evidence that I have number of chromosomes as Humans. And, you have no evidence that I can successfully mate with a Human (something that never happened, despite best efforts, but that too is yet another story).

Which kind of sums up your whole argument; Assumpsions that have no foundation in reality or physical data.

Strawman fallacy. Because I stated a number then reinforced it with more accurate ones.

The human being only has 20,000 unique genes. If you have the whole genes, then that means you have the evolutionary left overs of Earth, further reinforcing that you are human. Sorry, but Roddenberry's parallel Earth theory is not true.

Yes, you tried to back it up, with numbers that were orders of magnitude off if we are talking about Human DNA. Ya know, you could at least try to use conventional notation in your arguments.

I didn't know that Gene had a "parallel Earth Theory". Unfortunately you haven't proven that wrong either. Just because you say something doesn't make it true, not even if you say it a bunch of times.

So then lets do some math

98% of genes do not encode proteins (IE, make us look how we look)

20,000/.02 = 1000000

That means that out of 1 million genes, you are talking about a few dozen.

The math still supports you are human.

Actually I think the math will still support me. Be that as it may, there are a "few dozen" genes that we have examined so far. And within those we have found anomalies. If we expand our search, logic and murphy almost demand that we find more anomalies.

And, unless you are God, who are you to define how anomalous One must be to not be Human? I'm sorry, but that determination is outside your pay grade.

Architect major. We are architects once we enter the program. We don't work for years after education due to state regulation. Understand what you're talking about before you assume.

Sorry, but I do understand what I'm talking about. You are not an archiect ...yet. Once you have completed school, passed all of your state requirements, and, have worked in the field for a year or two, then, you will be an architect. If it makes ya feel any better, it was the same foe me. You see, I do know the professional world. It is hard, and new grads, in my area anyway, are little better than simple programmers/coders.

As for the "constant" you insist upon. You have a source for that requirement?

Also, that "constant" of yours is already there, I've pointed it out to you, its been there all along. Protocol, database.

added: Thanks for the reference to FST. Had you defined that term in the first place (as you should have) this confuaion could have been avoided.

The only issue I see here is that we are not currently working with SNP data and are only considering STR data. Any SNP data is currently unknown as it hasn't been analyzed. Again, these tests can be costly.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by AnthraAndromda]

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Sorry, I've not failed anything, and it appears that you with your experience handicap aren't doing so well. But, that is something else. Oh, and the USDA, and several other alphabets get by with that little of actual testing, why do you think they have recalls? Product not tested until after release. Shouldn't happen, but does.

USDA takes heat for that.

And you failed to explain all the questions I've had. You deviate, not answer

Well, we're not playing "what if" here. And, if my DNA was a tower of silobenzene, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Exactly why you are human.

You are making assumpsions here. You have no evidence that I have number of chromosomes as Humans. And, you have no evidence that I can successfully mate with a Human (something that never happened, despite best efforts, but that too is yet another story). Which kind of sums up your whole argument; Assumpsions that have no foundation in reality or physical data.

If you do not have the same number of chromosomes, you would have been reported in your genetic tests. Not to mention the placement of racial genes would be different, and you would not look human.

I do have foundations for what I am saying. The fact that you have lied. I never got the no matches your website claims nor did I get higher rates for an average human.

Yes, you tried to back it up, with numbers that were orders of magnitude off if we are talking about Human DNA. Ya know, you could at least try to use conventional notation in your arguments. I didn't know that Gene had a "parallel Earth Theory". Unfortunately you haven't proven that wrong either. Just because you say something doesn't make it true, not even if you say it a bunch of times.

The probability that every molecule of the solar system is placed in the same place in another galaxy and that every single molecule for the whole 4.5 billion years of Earth are replicated is ZERO.

I backed it up. I was wrong once. And now I am right. The change in numbers does not change the probability that you are human.

Actually I think the math will still support me. Be that as it may, there are a "few dozen" genes that we have examined so far. And within those we have found anomalies. If we expand our search, logic and murphy almost demand that we find more anomalies. And, unless you are God, who are you to define how anomalous One must be to not be Human? I'm sorry, but that determination is outside your pay grade.

Because I know. You do not.

Different Chromosomes, different species. And not one that looks human. Down syndrome. You do not have it.

Learn what you are claiming before you claim it. Or people like me will destroy you every time.

We still have nothing by computer tests. So really there's no physical proof or media claim or sources doctor claim for your words.

At the end of the day, you are asking us to take your word, which thus far has failed to prove it.

Sorry, but I do understand what I'm talking about. You are not an archiect ...yet. Once you have completed school, passed all of your state requirements, and, have worked in the field for a year or two, then, you will be an architect. If it makes ya feel any better, it was the same foe me. You see, I do know the professional world. It is hard, and new grads, in my area anyway, are little better than simple programmers/coders. As for the "constant" you insist upon. You have a source for that requirement? Also, that "constant" of yours is already there, I've pointed it out to you, its been there all along. Protocol, database.

Sorry. I've already worked in the architectural world for 3 years. I know how things work. You do not.

You have to know everything as an architect, or you've failed. I am well on my well. And as you can see, this is mere homework for me to learn more. You are dealing with someone whose job is to learn, debate, and philosophize. I will win this discussion always. It's conclusion is dependent upon you leaving, being banned, or giving up and admitting you lied.

You still have not answered my questions.

Why did the Constant show the same, hoe can you make your claim without alien DNA to examine, and why is the FST not Europe's level.

not to mention, how can you make your claim with only a few hundred thousand people to compare and not even 1% of the human population to compare with?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Also, let's move something from somewhere else here.

You still have to answer this.

Lets review. You claimed it said you were Indian or Africans. I assumed you were telling the truth and said you were an albino. You claimed you had no albino gene, I ran the tests and it found you to be European, thus ending that discussion. So what you are doing now is basically using your own lies to make more lies. Entangled much? if you are going to make a lie based off your own lie, at least try to be reasonable.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

USDA takes heat for that.

And you failed to explain all the questions I've had. You deviate, not answer

Yes, they certainly do.

Which questions would those be. You have said many things, some of which I fealt deserved no resonse. But, if you ask them again, I will reevaluate their merit.

If you do not have the same number of chromosomes, you would have been reported in your genetic tests. Not to mention the placement of racial genes would be different, and you would not look human.

Not neccessarily. The tests I've had done were specific to a defined set of genetic markers. As long as those markers are present, the lab tech has no reason to question anything about the sample. Further, they weren't count chromosomes in either of my tests.

People with Downs Syndrome have 24 chromosomes, normal humans have 23. Chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes. Which does a person with Downs look like? There are also other conditions where an otherwise normal looking Human can have 22, or 24 chromosomes. So, even if it was discovered that I have 24 or 25 chromosomes, that, all by itself wouldn't neccessarily make me "look" non human, and I could still express what appear to be normal human genes.

Your arguments are like the screen used in a door; full of holes.

I do have foundations for what I am saying. The fact that you have lied. I never got the no matches your website claims nor did I get higher rates for an average human.

I haven't lied. The example you are using was caused by the website changing their display, nothing else. It still reports the same information. What you thought were "hits" were actually the probability of finding a "hit". And, yes, I may have been off by a couple orders of magnitude (E-15 instead of E-13), however with how small these numbers/probabilities are, it still doesn't do your argument any favors.

The probability that every molecule of the solar system is placed in the same place in another galaxy and that every single molecule for the whole 4.5 billion years of Earth are replicated is ZERO.

I would argue this, but only in principal. Given an infinite universe, even that remote possibility must be.

You have to know everything as an architect, or you've failed. I am well on my well. And as you can see, this is mere homework for me to learn more. You are dealing with someone whose job is to learn, debate, and philosophize. I will win this discussion always. It's conclusion is dependent upon you leaving, being banned, or giving up and admitting you lied.

You are a funny child.

And, just what do you think I have been doing for 63 yers? Here's a quick little thing. Did this before you were even a twinkle in your fathers eye. See that machine in front of you? You are welcome! I was a member of the development team for the early PCs. Your car, Iwas a member of the development team for the pilot projects at General Motors that lead to the manufacturing techniques used by all auto makers today. (Gaw, robots were stupid then)

You aren't the only one who continues to learn, debate, philosophize, grow, and develop. You are far from being the inventor of that.

You still have not answered my questions.

Why did the Constant show the same, hoe can you make your claim without alien DNA to examine, and why is the FST not Europe's level.

I'm sorry, but you will have to take that up with the biologists who built the original database. I'm very sure they have valid scientific reasoning.

Though, again, what does SNP data have to do with STR data we are considering?

not to mention, how can you make your claim with only a few hundred thousand people to compare and not even 1% of the human population to compare with?

Because thats what is available, frther, it has been shown that even small samples like this are representative of much larger wholes.

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Yes, they certainly do. Which questions would those be. You have said many things, some of which I fealt deserved no resonse. But, if you ask them again, I will reevaluate their merit.

Let me be captain obvious here. That's why you're taking a lot of heat for your claims.

Not neccessarily. The tests I've had done were specific to a defined set of genetic markers. As long as those markers are present, the lab tech has no reason to question anything about the sample. Further, they weren't count chromosomes in either of my tests. People with Downs Syndrome have 24 chromosomes, normal humans have 23. Chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes. Which does a person with Downs look like? There are also other conditions where an otherwise normal looking Human can have 22, or 24 chromosomes. So, even if it was discovered that I have 24 or 25 chromosomes, that, all by itself wouldn't neccessarily make me "look" non human, and I could still express what appear to be normal human genes. Your arguments are like the screen used in a door; full of holes.

Genetic markers that are human. News flash, to have them means you are human.

And all those conditions? They are human. Thus lowering the possibility of you being alien by increasing the number of terrestrial answers.

I haven't lied. The example you are using was caused by the website changing their display, nothing else. It still reports the same information. What you thought were "hits" were actually the probability of finding a "hit". And, yes, I may have been off by a couple orders of magnitude (E-15 instead of E-13), however with how small these numbers/probabilities are, it still doesn't do your argument any favors.

However small they are, they do not show all humans and are only based on very selective results. We've all but dismissed the claims from that website. So why bother using it as proof?

Also, you did lie. You accused me of moving your racial identity around when you made the claims.

I would argue this, but only in principal. Given an infinite universe, even that remote possibility must be.

We are that remote possibility. Any change. Even the most tiniest, and you get different completely radical forms.

A SINGLE free radical misplaced in the timeline will create a completely different earth in a billion, 500,000 million, or even a few thousand years. A SINGLE misplaced atom can have a massive butterfly effect to create or destroy the earth.

This is not theory. This is fact. We observe the stars. There are plenty of Earths. But they all have different climates, different positions, different gravity, etc etc. The chances of replicating Earth are so low. Even a few miles off and maybe that deadly solar flare hits.

You are a funny child. And, just what do you think I have been doing for 63 yers? Here's a quick little thing. Did this before you were even a twinkle in your fathers eye. See that machine in front of you? You are welcome! I was a member of the development team for the early PCs. Your car, Iwas a member of the development team for the pilot projects at General Motors that lead to the manufacturing techniques used by all auto makers today. (Gaw, robots were stupid then) You aren't the only one who continues to learn, debate, philosophize, grow, and develop. You are far from being the inventor of that.

Then give us your name so we can check your records.

Also fyi, most of what you designed is no longer used. In fact barely anything is. Just as we don't use anything from the first cars of 1920s, we do not use anything from the first computers.

Times change, technology evolves. Seems kind of sad that a 60 million year old civilization would send its agents into commoner jobs and doing nothing.

Most of the computer parts and technology we use today was invented in the last 4 years.

I'm sorry, but you will have to take that up with the biologists who built the original database. I'm very sure they have valid scientific reasoning. Though, again, what does SNP data have to do with STR data we are considering?

Look it up. Maybe you'll learn something.

Because thats what is available, frther, it has been shown that even small samples like this are representative of much larger wholes.

yes. Of individual nations with clear lineages. If you had 5 generations of interbreeding between groups, you'd have your genes.

I am part Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, Irish, Native American, and God knows what else. I might just take that test to enter numbers for myself. I bet I'd have lower numbers then you.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Let me be captain obvious here. That's why you're taking a lot of heat for your claims.

What would have me do? Start yet another argument?

Genetic markers that are human. News flash, to have them means you are human.

Not neccessarily. I a similar question to the people at www.askabiologist.org.uk... I learned there that it may indeed be possible to amplify non-human DNA, thus allowing for other species that are close to humans to be amplified.

However small they are, they do not show all humans and are only based on very selective results. We've all but dismissed the claims from that website. So why bother using it as proof?

No, they don't show all humans, but they do show a good cross-section of the Human population, and thus a good cross-section of the Human Genome. That is all that is required. It gives us a good searchable database of Human genes and associated populations. And a wealth of other data.

By the way; when an individual record has an exception like this, most computers would stop execution of whatever it waas doing, and alert the operator. Then demand Human input on what to do with the exception.

What website would that be?

Also, you did lie. You accused me of moving your racial identity around when you made the claims.

Lets see ... as memory serves, you first said I was African, then it started to sink in that that was wrong, I kept saying; "Indo-African". Then you said I was Indo-African. I posted an image. Suddenly I was Indo-African Albino. You even posted pictures. I mentioned my European features. So I became an Albino Indo-African with european features. You even posted pictures.

Then you discovered the European data. Completely misread it, and declared I was Austrian

Completely ignoring any of the facts presented. You have gone on a long tiraid in some childish attempt to disprove me. And all you have done is display your very own shortcommings. You try to do the research, but, for some reason, you just can't figure out how to interpret the data. I even gave you a link to a site that gives a good overview, but, alas, you didn't learn.

Yet you continue to try "one more thing", thus illustrating that you are failing, and have begun to grasp at straws.

Also fyi, most of what you designed is no longer used. In fact barely anything is. Just as we don't use anything from the first cars of 1920s, we do not use anything from the first computers.

No, its not ... Computers are faster, can do more. They are 64bit instead of 8 or 16, but, they still run the same way, even the machine language of those processors will still run. You think that because you have a modern computer that it is fundimentaly different from on 30 years ago?

And, I'm not talking about old cars. I was refering to the modern cars are made ... mostly in the dark.

Times change, technology evolves. Seems kind of sad that a 60 million year old civilization would send its agents into commoner jobs and doing nothing.

Most of the computer parts and technology we use today was invented in the last 4 years.

Yes technology evolves, but basic principals and solid design remain stable.

Do you like the personal attack, or the childish remark strategy better?
If you keep it up, then I get to "use subjective personal experience."

LOL ... No. Most of the parts you use today were invented 30+ years ago ...

[edit on 11-8-2010 by AnthraAndromda]

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

You said you had dna that matched afro-indian dna. Not me. You said that you don't look that way. Thus I said you might be albino Indian.

That's what you said.

That's why you lied. You claimed I was moving around your origins, when it was you feeding me the data. So I cannot be held responsible for your changing of your story.

As stated, you have over 99.99% human DNA. This is required to allow the genomes to be properly used.

And yes, it would be in the news because if someone was checking the parts of human dna that show racial origins but instead show different chromosomes, that's a big no no.

You can claim you worked on all these things, but what is your proof?

Most technology we use is no more than 4 years old. They may be based off previous designs, but they are not related. We design new life forms with totally unique dna built from scratch based off our knowledge of dna. This does not make them made of the same parts. It means we used knowledge to build new.

FYI. None of this answered my questions.

So let's begin again. If someone was outside those isolated groups, they WOULD have much lower probability, like yourself.

What you are now saying is that because you have the same dna of a person of multiple backgrounds, you are alien.

Your entire argument is basically based on skin color and facial structure.

To be frank, that has nothing to do with being human. Some people don't even have those genes.

So here is the real simple version.

Prove that your skin color and facial structure being unique makes you an alien.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

Hi there AnthraAndromda

This link may answer some of your queries to your ET heritage. It is quite a long article to read, but very interesting.

www.freedomdomain.com...

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

FYI. None of this answered my questions.

So let's begin again. If someone was outside those isolated groups, they WOULD have much lower probability, like yourself.

What you are now saying is that because you have the same dna of a person of multiple backgrounds, you are alien.

Your entire argument is basically based on skin color and facial structure.

To be frank, that has nothing to do with being human. Some people don't even have those genes.

How about we don't start for a fourth time. You clearly have no interest in learning, or truth.

Why is it that you keep changing questions? And, how many ways can one individual fail to understand something, that is clearly defined?

I wonder if you fail to understand at all, but rather do understand the reality and implecations of this body of evidence. And, it is your fear factor that drives you to try to "debunk", obfuscate, and twist this data into something that has no meaning.

You are a fail; not only because you fail to understand the fundamental underlying premiss of my hypothesis, but also you technique of "disproof" are the tactics of those who employ psudo-science to "debunk" everything they encounter. As I have said before, these are not the techniques of One who seeks truth. You methods are better suited to defending some irrational pathology that manifests as xenophobia.

This discussion is ended.

Etharzi od Oma.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

No it's not over.

I have yet to change questions. More accurately, I've added onto them because you are beginning to get twisted in your own lies. I have designed entire planets over the course of months with their own biochemistry and evolution. I could hardly are if you are alien.

If you want to end this discussion because you have lost, be my guest. Until then, you've repeated the same pile of disproven bull.

So again. How can you be alien, and 99.99% sure, if 99.99% of your dna is human, and we are talking about your race and facial structure.

How come the FST of Europe is not available? Do you not realize that a mere 3 or 4 generations of interbreeding between groups would create your dna?

And the constant shows your numbers too. So how can you be alien?

Very simply put, you are going to have answer this, or admit you cannot and therefore are human.

Thanks for showing your true colors.

I don't play games old man. I play for keeps.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:03 PM
I cannot help but wonder. What if he was simply adopted, and his parents raised him to believe they were blood-related? That could explain all the "anomalies."

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by Varemia

Yes.

The simple low down is this.

If a Pole married a Hungarian, and they had English and German blood in them, the resulting child would show the results of his.

All and all he's arguing that because he's not pure blood, he's an alien. Well. At least he's not a super special Aryan.

He claimed his genes said he was of Afro Indian decent but he looks Caucasian. Upon closer inspection this was a lie.

He claims that the website shows he has a very low chance of being human. This too is a lie, as anybody with mixed backgrounds would show the same setting.

He claims a lot of things. Sometimes contradicting previous things.

Ergo, he is a liar with a personality disorder. Note how he stopped posting anywhere else for the last few days once I started talking with him. This is a clear sign of an individual in need of help. Once he gets involved in a discussion, he closes himself to the rest of the world because of his desperate need to prove his lie. it's quite pathetic really.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Varemia
I cannot help but wonder. What if he was simply adopted, and his parents raised him to believe they were blood-related? That could explain all the "anomalies."

I wondered that too, when I checked there was no record of an adoption, nor, a second male child born at that hospital at that time.

Etharzi od Oma.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:29 PM
The only other idea I can think of would be that one of your ancestors was an adopted child. It wouldn't be on record before a certain point.

top topics

8