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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 125
31
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Once again evolution and genes have no consciousness. If a mutation occurs it can either be advantageous, neutral, or deleterious. If it's advantageous it increases the individuals chances at reproducing; if it's neutral it doesn't affect the individuals chances at procreation; and if it's deleterious it lowers the chances at procreating.
Ok so first you were trying to get me to accept the outrageiously off chance that we successfully evolved leaving behind a plethora of failed attempts.

My friend you are adding to the allready non existant large pile of missing bones. WHERE ARE THE BONES. Just like I have always said, and now you toss in a theory that adds to the bones we still can't find.




From our research the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious. Therefore, if an individual is born with a genetic defect that prevents them from processing or acquiring that species natural food sources it will die and the genes will not be passed on. On the other hand if an individual is born with a mutation that allows them to process or acquire a new food source it will increase their chances of survival and those genes will be passed on.
This isn't what I got out of what I read. It was more like anytime speciation occurs, the species will die quickly if its a large change. Now take a look at primates and humans, You would agree with me that there are some seriously large differences there. So how is it that the species didn't die out? Well there is only one explanation, the changes were subtle and took a long time. Like I said, trillions of years.




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Ok so first you were trying to get me to accept the outrageiously off chance that we successfully evolved leaving behind a plethora of failed attempts.

My friend you are adding to the allready non existant large pile of missing bones. WHERE ARE THE BONES. Just like I have always said, and now you toss in a theory that adds to the bones we still can't find.


Bones decompose, ya numbskull. The ones that don't get fossilized, and we've found quite a few for how rare they are.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But agreed, the "be quiet please" IS nicer than what I'm used to, you should see some of the PMs I got over the years. The word "satan" was even mentioned more than once


Ya! It was prolly me X !
No, I think as far as I went, was to say are you sure you aren't a satanist ?

I get 'em to and can't figure why ? The last one got a lil creepy. Total obsession.

Anyways.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Normally you would be correct and its a good possibility at best. With this case however he is specifically indicating that the base pairs are coherent. This means they are reading them right, and getting a correct answer back.

Rules of Pseudoscience, #1
When the facts disagree with the source of the claim (e.g. pseudoscientist's erroneous conclusion, literal interpretation of religious text, etc.), the source of the claim must be correct in spite of the facts.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Science gets many things wrong, don't make it your God. Our Lord's mother
did not come from the Apes.

I forget, is it micro or macro evolution? I am thinking
of the one that states, there is no evolution from one species to another, there
maybe evolution within a species.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

That he's wrong, and he probably knows anything he publishes won't make it past peer review.


that's silly and shows you really don't know the details



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





You mean the health history which shows that up until about 10,000 years ago, humans led healthy lives, and that agriculture is what spurred an unhealthy diet, but allowed us to stay in one place long enough to develop cities and infrastructures and advanced technology? That health history?

If you know of another, please, enlighten me.
Ok first of all nothing ALLOWED us to build cities and infastructures. We were forced to. Take all your close off and go stand but naked in the 0 degree weather and get used to it, simply because your allowed to. I would bet money you would either go inside or put some cloths on because you have to.

This is a main reason why evolution is such a crock, things aren't allowed, they become necessity, so we end up having to do it. Just like using milk from the cow. It's not because we wanted to. YUCK, who in there right mind would dream of drinking milk from another animal? That just turns me on, ohh baby.



You have no idea. You are in no way researched at all. Here's some fast classroom time for you.

Our ancester hunter gatherers at some point realised that they could grow grains and other crops rather than pick them wildy. This would have happened as a result of noticing that spilled grains that had been collected were growing in groups where they were spilled.

This is the start of agriculture. Because they started to grow the grains deliberately they no longer had to worry about outsripping their food supply so they had no need to be nomadic which in turn called for permanent dwellings. What comes with being established is social and civil development. Populations grow, inovation explodes new ways of doing new things and old come along because they are now established.

Agriculture is harder work than hunting and gathering but the returns are much greater. We went form hunter gatherer to farmer to industry because at some point they learned to cultivate.

You will not believe this even though this is accepted in science and there is archaeological evidence of it.

You flatly refuse to entertain any idea or research or evidence that does not agree with your guesses which are based on nothing but a great lack of knowledge.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 
TBH until Pye publishes his evidence neither do you



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Bones decompose, ya numbskull. The ones that don't get fossilized, and we've found quite a few for how rare they are.
Right, now we can find dinosaur bones and bones of humanoids that have no relation to us, just those specific bones decompose. Remember over tens of thousands are missing and that doesn't include the count of any that evolved. Our mtDNA is telling scientists that our species never dipped below tens of thousands.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Rules of Pseudoscience, #1
When the facts disagree with the source of the claim (e.g. pseudoscientist's erroneous conclusion, literal interpretation of religious text, etc.), the source of the claim must be correct in spite of the facts.
Well those are based on YOUR facts, not MY facts, and my facts say different.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 





Science gets many things wrong, don't make it your God. Our Lord's mother
did not come from the Apes.

I forget, is it micro or macro evolution? I am thinking
of the one that states, there is no evolution from one species to another, there
maybe evolution within a species.
Well thats exactly what I understood when I looked over what they were sending me too. I dunno why they think a species can evolve into another species, it goes against the structure of life.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 





You have no idea. You are in no way researched at all. Here's some fast classroom time for you.

Our ancester hunter gatherers at some point realised that they could grow grains and other crops rather than pick them wildy. This would have happened as a result of noticing that spilled grains that had been collected were growing in groups where they were spilled.

This is the start of agriculture. Because they started to grow the grains deliberately they no longer had to worry about outsripping their food supply so they had no need to be nomadic which in turn called for permanent dwellings. What comes with being established is social and civil development. Populations grow, inovation explodes new ways of doing new things and old come along because they are now established.

Agriculture is harder work than hunting and gathering but the returns are much greater. We went form hunter gatherer to farmer to industry because at some point they learned to cultivate.

You will not believe this even though this is accepted in science and there is archaeological evidence of it.

You flatly refuse to entertain any idea or research or evidence that does not agree with your guesses which are based on nothing but a great lack of knowledge.
Well actually I do find evolution entertaining, I do seriously laugh. I'm begining to realize that you guys are just not understanding it correctly. The guy that recently posted before you understands that evolution happens within a species but never out of a species. Thats what I read too. So I think you guys are just stretching it a tad to far.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

Before this we have the test with the mitochondrial DNA. As we know this produced a perfect match for human DNA on the mother's side. Unfortunately, this test was unable to get any nuclear DNA to test. For whatever reason Pye uses this as evidence for human/alien hybridization.


There are lots of deformities associated with Y chromosome abnormalities, among them Langer mesomelic dysplasia which causes:


anger mesomelic dysplasia (LMD) is characterized by severe disproportionate short stature with mesomelic and rhizomelic shortening of the upper and lower limbs. Prevalence is unknown but less than 50 cases have been reported in the literature so far. LMD represents a more severe form of Léri-Weill dyschondrosteosis (LWD; see this term) with severely shortened long bones of the limbs (involving both the middle and proximal segments), deformity of the humeral head, angulation of the radial shaft, carpal distortion, a short femoral neck, and absence or hypoplasia of the proximal half of the fibula.

snip

Genetic counseling should be proposed and families should be informed that SHOX/PAR1 anomalies are inherited in a pseudoautosomal dominant manner. Each child of an individual with LWD has a 50% chance of inheriting the mutation. If both parents have LWD, the offspring have a 50% chance of having LWD, a 25% chance of having LMD, and a 25% chance of having neither condition. All children of an individual with LMD and an unaffected parent will present with LWD. Prenatal genetic testing is available, however, requests for testing for these disorders are uncommon but are more frequent for LMD. There is no effective treatment for LMD. The symptomatic medical management of children with LMD begins at birth and continues into adulthood. Careful monitoring of height, weight, and head circumference is essential. The short stature and limb deformities are severe but life expectancy is normal.


See here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... d%289027087%29&QSTR=SRY&CMD=&FILL=0&ZOOM=0&ABS_ZOOM=0&GNL=None

I think GNAS-1 is the best explanation, though.


Now, there is one other test that Pye doesn't mention at all. In 1999 a genetic lab in Vancouver, BOLD, was able to test two samples from the skull. In both samples they were able to find standard X and Y chromosomes. This not only means that the child was male, but it also means that both parents would have had to be human to contribute both sex chromosomes.


That's my guess too. If the child is male, it has to have a Y chromosome. There are very rare instances where a girl can have an XY, but I've never heard of a boy having XX without being female.


edit on 12/15/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by HappyBunny

That he's wrong, and he probably knows anything he publishes won't make it past peer review.


that's silly and shows you really don't know the details


LOL You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that geneticists are going to tear him to pieces, bottle.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





First off evolution has no consciousness, so stop trying to personify it. Second, if an animal did not have food it wouldn't survive, thus removing it from the gene pool. Evolution isn't one straight path. It is a process of trial and error.
So in other words only the pools that are fit for the enviroment, live, so the rest just die. Come on people do you seriously buy this crap. You might as well call it kamikaze genes. I for one know that isn't possible. They all want to live.


There's more to it than living. They have to pass their genes on in order for their traits to survive. Nature has a brutal way of dealing with them, unfortunately.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

WITH ADULT TEETH WTF !

Do you have children? They can get their adult teeth starting at around age 4. By 5-6 some of them have quite a few, and the baby teeth don't have to fall out for the adult teeth to be considered "in." They can be behind the baby teeth. And baby teeth don't have roots. After 900 years, if the baby teeth were still in the mouth when the child died, they'd have fallen out long ago.
edit on 12/15/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/15/2011 by HappyBunny because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





Bones decompose, ya numbskull. The ones that don't get fossilized, and we've found quite a few for how rare they are.
Right, now we can find dinosaur bones and bones of humanoids that have no relation to us, just those specific bones decompose. Remember over tens of thousands are missing and that doesn't include the count of any that evolved. Our mtDNA is telling scientists that our species never dipped below tens of thousands.



Did you miss the whole FOSSILIZATION part of my post? It's where very slowly over time, bones get replaced by minerals through a chemical process. In many cases, the bone will completely decompose, but there will be a pocket inside the rock from where the bone was, and so sediment will fill the gap, and a semblance of the original bone will remain.

You actually think we find actual dinosaur bones? You're hilariously misinformed!



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

It's more than the dna in the skull that points to non-human such as the chemical composition of the bone, morphology and physiology. There is no sinuses, the eye sockets are too shallow to fit a human eye, the brain sits on the brain stem which would kill a human, the muscle attachments are all different, the way the skull sits on the neck and more. The skull's chemical make up, shape and function show that it is not human. I only wish more geneticists would get involved. So far the genetic differences indicate it is not even close to human.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

It's more than the dna in the skull that points to non-human such as the chemical composition of the bone, morphology and physiology. There is no sinuses, the eye sockets are too shallow to fit a human eye, the brain sits on the brain stem which would kill a human, the muscle attachments are all different, the way the skull sits on the neck and more. The skull's chemical make up, shape and function show that it is not human. I only wish more geneticists would get involved. So far the genetic differences indicate it is not even close to human.


Sorry, but you are wrong. I'm not going to get into this yet again. This is a human child with genetic abnormalities.

But let's say it is definitely proven that it's not human. Why do you automatically assume it's an alien and not another species or subspecies of human?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

It's more than the dna in the skull that points to non-human such as the chemical composition of the bone, morphology and physiology. There is no sinuses, the eye sockets are too shallow to fit a human eye, the brain sits on the brain stem which would kill a human, the muscle attachments are all different, the way the skull sits on the neck and more. The skull's chemical make up, shape and function show that it is not human. I only wish more geneticists would get involved. So far the genetic differences indicate it is not even close to human.


And yet, for some strange reason, it looks just like a rare genetic defect. Just so you know, if your DNA has a defect in it, it will spread to the rest of your genes. Usually, this kills the organism, but occasionally, the organism will survive, and considering that the "star child" was found in a cave, it sounds like it was shunned from whatever society it came from.




top topics



 
31
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join