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: 126
31
<< 123  124  125    127  128  129 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

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.


Don't some modern peoples still do that? Like all animals, we wouldn't spend time, energy, or resources caring for offspring that are too weak to make it. We call it cruel, but it's been a fact of life for thousands of years.

Most of these children are miscarried. That's nature's way of correcting these kinds of genetic errors.




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


You're assuming that the child would have been born with these defects. As I have stated previously all of the abnormalities found in the skull can be explained with a mutation in the GNAS-1 gene. With this the child would be born healthy and then over time, as the DNA replicates, the problems will become more and more pronounced. This would eventually lead to the child's death as we see here.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


You're assuming that the child would have been born with these defects. As I have stated previously all of the abnormalities found in the skull can be explained with a mutation in the GNAS-1 gene. With this the child would be born healthy and then over time, as the DNA replicates, the problems will become more and more pronounced. This would eventually lead to the child's death as we see here.


I'm not disagreeing with you, but there are other conditions and environmental exposure that could cause deformity in utero and can cause all kinds of issues in early childhood. Heavy metals like cobalt and lead--and aluminum--can do that, and the child was found in a mine. The high Al levels are consistent with that. For all we know he had renal failure in addition to everything else. GNAS1 gene disorders are caused by a mutation in utero, aren't they?

I do think GNAS is correct, but even so, there's no guarantee that the parents would have invested the time or energy in caring for the child.

I'm just saying it's a possibility.
edit on 12/15/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Evolution doesn't fit at all, it has gaping holes and no one cares to address those with me. Can you tell me how it is that evolution is smart enough to evolve a species and somehow magically know what this new species is going to need to eat, and it makes that too?

How can you honestly say that if you have read the links given to you? There is nothing magical about it. Genetic mutations along with natural selection is what drives evolution.



Well I doubt very seriously if something HAS to be published before it can be authentic. Its just more about what you would like to see. I have explained about half a dozen times now some reasons why he may have intentionally not wanted or been able to share that information.

I would like to see the evidence before considering something a fact.. Sure they could be authentic, but until Pye makes it available for review it has no credibility. You can't base your objective view of reality on what "might" be true. I prefer to go with what has tangible evidence back it up, not wild claims made by an author that who won't release it.



Now look, I copied the definition for objective evidence
www.businessdictionary.com...
Pye hasn't presented anything that your claiming can't be verfied. I said it 5 times now do your own analysis and then come back to me and tell me where his flaws were. It just seems like you guys are lazy as hell.

Have you examined the evidence and lab results yet? I don't care what you've said 5 times now, your information is speculation at best. Information BASED ON FACTS THAT CAN BE PROVED THROUGH ANALYSIS, MEASUREMENT, OBSERVATION OR OTHER MEANS OF RESEARCH. Thanks for backing up my point about objective evidence. Pye has not provided the analysis, measurements or observations of his work, therefor he has NOT presented objective evidence. I'm lazy because I can't examine evidence that hasn't been provided? How do you expect me or anyone else to do this? I know you haven't done it, and you're the one who believes it. Again, provide the evidence or leave the thread. Stop clogging it up with off topic guesswork and ramblings. This thread is for objective evidence. What you are claiming is a logical fallacy, assuming that Pye is correct because "he has reasons to not release it". Maybe he does, but he hasn't released it and the objective evidence hasn't been reviewed.



Just because you don't take the steps to prove him wrong does not mean he is automatically wrong.

I didn't say he was automatically wrong. I said there's no objective evidence to support his claims and this thread is about objective evidence to explain the diversity of life on earth without evolution.


Here are the DNA findings to the star child....
www.youtube.com...
Including mtDNA / nuclear DNA / base pairs / and NIH database comparisons.

That is not DNA findings. That is a youtube video with somebody making claims. I need to see the actual labwork and analysis, not 3rd party perspective.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
126 pages, and only 19 flats...this HAS to be a record


Happy others are making sure no one falls for the crook Pye and his fiction


You can't force someone to change his BELIEFS, but you can post links that debunk it, therefore making sure others aren't getting dumbed down. At least that way, you follow the site's "deny ignorance" mantra



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
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.



You've obviously heard of dinosaur bones but you haven't armed yourself with knowledge in regards to them.. As the bone slowly decayed, water infused with minerals and seeped into the bones and replaced the chemicals in the bone with rock-like minerals.

So the bones are no longer there but rather something like rock has replaced them. That is the only dinosaur bones there are, There are no dinosaur bones that this hasn't happened to.
edit on 15-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





How can you honestly say that if you have read the links given to you? There is nothing magical about it. Genetic mutations along with natural selection is what drives evolution.
I'm going to seriously call this the ghost of evolution. Out of the 5 million species that we have here on earth, we have never been able to positivly ID any of them as being evolved from or to anything else. Dont you think thats just a little strange? 5 million is a large number and there should be evolution exponentially from all 5 million.

We have never witnessed any form of macroevolution much less found any bones that prove it.
We seem to be unable to find bones of failed species that came up from me asking how we are suppose to find food for ourselves if we are a new species. The whole theory of evolution is based on a plethora of other theorys. I would say there are about 10 theorys to support the whole idea and only one have we ever been able to witness. Then people accuse me of buying snake oil because I think god was a space alien.

Some are:
microevolution theory.
speciation theory.
GMO's theory.
macroevolution theory.
the no fossils theory.
the missing link theory.
the common ancestor theory.
the missing transition theory.
the common descent theory.
the neanderthal theory.
Our brain size theory.

The list goes on, and it looks like each time we come up with a theory to explain something, another theory is added to make it work as well, then another theory to allow that one to work.
I have learned something from the pages of evolution, anytime you need to put a story together and the dots don't want to connect, just add another theory. If you run into another speed bump, just add another theory and patch that one up too. I have learned from all this that the use of the word theory really can be abused. I don't want to say that just because god was a space alien, its easier so its correct but still I think I have much fewer theorys. This is just out of hand people. I'm supprised you guys don't see whats going on here.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to understand the scientific definition of a theory and keep using it improperly...


microevolution theory.

Observed.


speciation theory.

Observed.


GMO's theory.

What do genetically modified organisms have to do with evolution?


macroevolution theory.

Identical to speciation. See above.


the no fossils theory.

Repeatedly explained to you in this thread.


the missing link theory.

Fallacious concept, explained repeatedly in this thread.


the common ancestor theory.

Observed.


the missing transition theory.

Same as "missing link". See above.


the common descent theory.

Same as "common ancestor". See above.


the neanderthal theory.

The fact that we lived side by side with them and interbred? Or do you mean something else?


Our brain size theory.

Your erroneous assertion that we have the largest brain to body mass ratio in all of nature? Or do you mean something else?

For whatever reason, I have my hypotheses but will refrain from making them public in order to keep the thread civil, you've constructed an amazingly elaborate strawman argument against evolution and the evidence for it. Meanwhile, you've lowered your own personal burden of proof for anything supporting interventionism to such a ridiculous degree that you've become a case study in confirmation bias.

Have you ever considered that this could be exactly what Lloyd Pye is trying to do? After all, he has a BS in psychology. Wouldn't it be interesting if he were performing an exceedingly elaborate experiment by producing information that interventionists would buy into hook, line and sinker, just to see what kind of lengths his adherents would go to in order to defend him and his claims, in spite of the objective evidence to the contrary?
edit on 15/12/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Ok, time to ask the question that no one ever has an answer for. What is the mechanism that prevents mutations from accruing over time to produce a new species?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Observed
Not in humans.




Observed.
Not in humans.




What do genetically modified organisms have to do with evolution?
IMO not a damn thing but some people are trying to convince me that they are in part what cause evolution.




Identical to speciation. See above.
Also not in humans.




Repeatedly explained to you in this thread.
Redundant theorys can't be backed up with other theorys.




Fallacious concept, explained repeatedly in this thread.
Some people are claiming that bones and skulls have been found, claiming to be a missing link between us and primates, and it's not true.




Observed.
Common ancestor is nothing more than an unprobable theory. So the only way it's been observed is in writting.




Same as "missing link". See above.
It's not the same, we are still looking for transitional bones, in addition to the missing link, I think your begining to realize now just how many holes there are in evolution.




Same as "common ancestor". See above.
I actually meant bones missing in this one.





The fact that we lived side by side with them and interbred? Or do you mean something else?
I find it very hard to believe that a different species was able to successfully mate with another. Out of five million species on this planet we are only aware of one other situation like this. The horse and donkey, to make a mule.




Your erroneous assertion that we have the largest brain to body mass ratio in all of nature? Or do you mean something else?
No you got it right, but there are only two other species here on earth that this doesn't apply to.




For whatever reason, I have my hypotheses but will refrain from making them public in order to keep the thread civil, you've constructed an amazingly elaborate strawman argument against evolution and the evidence for it. Meanwhile, you've lowered your own personal burden of proof for anything supporting interventionism to such a ridiculous degree that you've become a case study in confirmation bias.
Not at all I think you have demonstratively tried to cover your own end on recovering the excuses for the mass theorys that are not holding up evolution. In the list I gave I have only read about one of all of them that was actually observed.

And the burden of proof is on your, not on me, I have a plethora of proof even in documentation, which you have chosen not to be any form of proof. I'm sorry but it honestly beats the hell out of anything you have presented me in the form of evolution. We have history telling us just how things have happened, and you choose to ignore it because it seperates you from the fuzzy primates.




Have you ever considered that this could be exactly what Lloyd Pye is trying to do? After all, he has a BS in psychology. Wouldn't it be interesting if he were performing an exceedingly elaborate experiment by producing information that interventionists would buy into hook, line and sinker, just to see what kind of lengths his adherents would go to in order to defend him and his claims, in spite of the objective evidence to the contrary?

Pye's take on all of this is slightly different than the others. Sitchen never produced any reports of DNA to back up the claims, so you can't say there work is the same or taken from one another. Pye's work could also match the bible of course he doesn't know this, so once again you can't even say that he is following the bible, however you are saying he is following both when you claim all of my sources to be one.

Von daniken might have had strong simularitys with sitchen but I never was really interested in the details, just the basics, non of which match. So again your arguing about sources that don't even look at the each others work. I think its just your way to try to snowball the work back and claim that its a bunch of copy cats, when in fact its not. Most of what I'm finding, they themsevles didn't know about.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


sorry you're wrong. this skull has nothing to do with fibrous dysplasia which does not change the CHEMICAL COMPOSITION of the bone or cause fibers to grow inside the bone matrix. What you're talking about causes asymmetrical abnormalities to the bone and that is not the case with the SC skull which is symmetrically shaped, symmetrically thinner and in general is nothing like a human skull. It is not caused by a deformity.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


guanine nucleotides



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
126 pages, and only 19 flats...this HAS to be a record


Happy others are making sure no one falls for the crook Pye and his fiction


You can't force someone to change his BELIEFS, but you can post links that debunk it, therefore making sure others aren't getting dumbed down. At least that way, you follow the site's "deny ignorance" mantra


It's a red flag on your intentions the way you assume Pye is a "crook". Actually you're position is the one from ignorance.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


As I have not researched this particular aspect as deeply as other people I'll just simply post a link. Specifically check out the posts by Houcad as he has done a lot of research in regards to the Starchild skull and GNAS-1.

Link



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

the teeth prove it's not a child. The chemical composition of the bone and structures inside the bone prove it is not human or even a defective human. You guys need to understand there is more than just the dna that shows this is not a human. You're stretching reason. You have to (well you don't have to but the smart people will) accept this for what it is and it is not human.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


As I have not researched this particular aspect as deeply as other people I'll just simply post a link. Specifically check out the posts by Houcad as he has done a lot of research in regards to the Starchild skull and GNAS-1.

Link


it still can't account for the chemical make up, fibers, red substance in the cancellous holes, symmetry, condition of the teeth, lack of intercranial ridges (which clearly shows not a human brain), lack of brow ridge, lower and larger than human ear canals, larger opening for brain stem and completely non human neck and musculoskeletal morphology, and your favorite and mine the lack of an inion. I don't trust "your guy" any more than I can throw him. People like that use their smarts for dishonest agendas and I don't like them.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

it's yet to be seen and we could end it if someone would fund ( invest) in doing the full genome I'm sure Lloyd would be more than happy to put up or shut up. I think it's obvious how badly some people want this to not be true. and I think that is because this IS the smoking gun. It proves not only were aliens around in the past but they were fiddling around with our junk dna.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Not in humans.

Sure it has. Or are you claiming that there's no genetic variation in humans?


Not in humans.

Because the resulting organisms would no longer be human. That's why macroevolution is also referred to as speciation.


IMO not a damn thing but some people are trying to convince me that they are in part what cause evolution.

So it has nothing to do with evolution, but you're using it as an argument against evolution? That's the logical fallacy known as a strawman argument.


Also not in humans.

See above. Speciation is an observed phenomenon. Can you explain the mechanism why which it can happen in all species except ours?


Redundant theorys can't be backed up with other theorys.

What's redundant? And what's a theory about fossil formation? We know under what conditions they can form. In fact, we have such a good grasp on this concept that we can target areas in which to search for fossils. Sorry if there aren't enough fossils to satisfy your unreasonable burden of proof for evolution. Can you show me the fossils of aliens upon which you're basing your claims of interventionism?


Some people are claiming that bones and skulls have been found, claiming to be a missing link between us and primates, and it's not true.

There's no such thing as a missing link. The fact that you persist in claiming that missing links disprove evolution only highlights that you don't really understand the claims made by evolution. In effect, you've generated another strawman argument.


Common ancestor is nothing more than an unprobable theory. So the only way it's been observed is in writting.

There's fossil evidence, morphological evidence, genetic evidence... so your claim that it's only been observed in writing is just a display of your own ignorance.


It's not the same, we are still looking for transitional bones, in addition to the missing link, I think your begining to realize now just how many holes there are in evolution.

The fact that you don't think transitional forms are the same as what you keep calling a "missing link" is your scientific ignorance on display again. By all means, keep strawmanning yourself to death.


I actually meant bones missing in this one.

See above.


I find it very hard to believe that a different species was able to successfully mate with another. Out of five million species on this planet we are only aware of one other situation like this. The horse and donkey, to make a mule.

More fabrication on your part. Not only are the common intra- and interspecific hybrids (hybrids at the subspecies and species level), but there are intergeneric hybrids (hybrids at the genus level) and even interfamilial hybrids (hybrids at the family level). All you have to do is a little research on the hundreds and thousands of observed hybrids to know about this. Instead, you make up a lie. Will you ever get tired of making up lies to support your argument since you have no evidence?


No you got it right, but there are only two other species here on earth that this doesn't apply to.

And the fact that there are other species with higher brain-to-body mass ratios proves that it doesn't correlate to intelligence. So unless you can directly explain what it has to do with evolution, it's just another strawman argument from you.


Pye's take on all of this is slightly different than the others. Sitchen never produced any reports of DNA to back up the claims, so you can't say there work is the same or taken from one another. Pye's work could also match the bible of course he doesn't know this, so once again you can't even say that he is following the bible, however you are saying he is following both when you claim all of my sources to be one.

Von daniken might have had strong simularitys with sitchen but I never was really interested in the details, just the basics, non of which match. So again your arguing about sources that don't even look at the each others work. I think its just your way to try to snowball the work back and claim that its a bunch of copy cats, when in fact its not. Most of what I'm finding, they themsevles didn't know about.

I wasn't talking about the others. I was talking about everything Pye has written being an intentional farce, designed as part of a grand psychology experiment because he decided to go back to school and earn his PhD in psychology. You're the rat in his maze.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





the teeth prove it's not a child. The chemical composition of the bone and structures inside the bone prove it is not human or even a defective human. You guys need to understand there is more than just the dna that shows this is not a human. You're stretching reason. You have to (well you don't have to but the smart people will) accept this for what it is and it is not human.
You know something I think you guys are totally missing on the SC skull is that even if Pye had never eluded to the idea that its alien, I still would have drawn that conclusion with eveything he has presented.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Can you prove it to be right?


Personally I believe in a quasi-creationism/evelotionism idea. Nothing can come from nothing so there had to be something that created it all, whether you want to call it God, The Creator, Bhudda or any other name. I am not saying that i believe in "God", but I do believe in a creator and also believe that things were created to exist in a dynamic state rather than a static, non changing state. Evolution cannot be proved correct anymore than creationism can be. Therefore I tend to believe that there was some mysterious force that gave everything in the universe a start and then nature ran its course.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 123  124  125    127  128  129 >>

log in

join