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: 140
31
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No...not everything is possible. And the theory doesn't claim otherwise
So now your going to tell me it isn't possible that a monkey gave birth to a human?


No, that's not possible according to the theory.




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





What theory says this? Its certainly not evolution, if this happened evolution would be considered wrong on so many different levels.
Why am I getting this contradiction from you.

First you tell me that large changes are normal in evolution (even though we don't see them happening today) at the same time your asking where a primate giving birth to a human came from. It's just another large change.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





the op is just as interested in this and I've explained to him why I think this is more important. who cares about the details of evolution if our dna has been manipulated by extraterrestrials?
Well I have to agree with you. It is perhaps the most unsettling things out of the whole picture.

It should be dealt with first because until we can come to terms with it, everything else could possibly be up in the air. How do we not know there were other things here on life that have altered DNA as well. It's as though we can't go forward until we find out exactly what happened there.

Of course this scenerio could match the bible. It is possible like I have been saying all this time about the bible. God punishing us through DNA. It also explains how he was also able to cause these punisments to be carried on to our offspring. I have no doubt believing he did this to us. Unfortunatly it also proves that he is not the main creator of life.

IMO a creator of life, that has made so many wonderful things would not be killing us by dropping atomic bombs on us and killing masses of people like he did. So it sets us even further back trying to find out who or what put us here. Of course our mtDNA also supports this as well because we have a common ancestor thats 200,000 years old while god was supposed to have put me here about 10,000 years ago. I'm just missing about 190,000 years of my lineage is all.

And it gets worse, the 200,000 year common ancestor, is just that, its not our starting point, they seem to be omiting that from us. IMO its because we are older than earth and well that just doesn't look right so they haven't published it.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Well since your going to profile me, I can let you know how I have profiled you as well.

It's not profiling, it's calling you on it when you try to backtrack and claim that you were just being sarcastic. It's obvious from your earlier comments that you weren't. And the fact that you're still trying to weasel it around throughout the rest of this reply is further confirmation that you weren't being sarcastic earlier..


Everyone knows that crocoduck is not possible, but your also looking at it from the idea that a crock mated with a duck.

This statement confirms that you still don't understand the origin of the concept of the crocoduck. It has nothing to do with two animals from different classes mating and producing offspring. Seriously, educate yourself on the point the creationists who invented the crocoduck were trying to make and why it's been used to mock them since then.


Your not looking at it from the idea that a crock evolved partially into a duck.

That's closer to the original context than your mating scenario.


Now from what I'm getting from evolutionists, anything is possible.

Strawman argument.


Your trying to tell me that its easier for a tornado to construct a jet plane from junk parts easier than a crock polinating with a duck. In the realm of evolution it is possible that one morphs, so your wrong again Iterao.

You're using Hoyle's fallacy (note that it's called a fallacy for a reason), a fallacy regarding abiogenesis, to try and disprove evolution, a concept regarding biodiversity. They're two separate concepts. It would be just as accurate for me to state that Plato was wrong about the elements being fire, water, air, and earth because Winston Churchill promised only blood, sweat, tears, and toil.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No, that's not possible according to the theory.
Sorry UVA was leading me to believe that it is possible. From everything I read it would take generations, but he is telling me that serious changes can happen overnight. Maybe there is a missunderstanding on my part of what major and serious are. He might be talking about on a small scale like eye color, or body hair, but not a complete transformation.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Science doesn't work like that man.

Based on your comments and responses, I'd have to say that you don't have the first clue how science works.


You cant break something down and get a composite and automatically know what it is.
Now in the real of evolution , yes things should be that easy. Based on the fact that everything you need to know, should be here LOL. I know differently.

And wrongly.


We aren't from here so you don't find those answers, and if we were, you should have no problem doing so.

There you go again, holding science to a different standard than you hold for yourself.


This is just like the normal scenerio about finding an alien skull. Science will NEVER say its alien until we have the option of knocking on ET's door and asking for a blood sample to compare our findings.

No, but irrefutable proof would be nice. If you had a grey alien skull for comparison, that would be even better.





So? That still doesn't prove anything and I never said it was blood. Marrow, maybe, in which case my explanation suffices.
Again your looking for evolution answers in a an alien situation.

And you're evading the issue. My explanation is satisfactory biologically. You can't refute it, so you resort to your little alien friend.





Wow, can you saw STRAW MAN?? Where the hell did I even hint that it could be Neanderthal??

Where do you get the 30% brain mass from?
I don't remember specifically why I used that, dunno. 30% ADDITIONAL brain mass was in one of his other videos about the skull.

Again, I think you mean volume. And you're still evading the point that I never compared the Starchild to a Neanderthal. You didn't answer my question about how Pye deals with the simple biochemical issue that, by some towering coincidence, the aliens had just the right number of chromosomes to mate with a human woman and produce offspring.


Well no it's not impossible, I would say its uncommon however. I also know someone that has no sinuses. The star child also had adult teeth, and more waiting to come down. Now I even asked a dentist about this, and it does happen, but not five more, thats absurd. This skull could be looked at like freak of the century to try to explain all of these differences but it also lacks physical characteristics of any deformitys.

Wow. You really are blind. Then again, we're never so blind as we are when we're deceiving ourselves.

It's already been explained to you how it's possible the Starchild could have adult teeth at age 5.





You're quite wrong.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
I told you there was only one database, so you provided me with one link that all goes to the same network. Granted they are technically seperate databaes, I was unable to find any others that offer querry searches that were NOT through NIH.

Just admit you were wrong and get it over with, will you?





You know, when you're already in a hole, it's generally a good idea to STOP DIGGING.

I can't even respond to the rest of that post except to say that such a lack of science education and critical thinking really makes the future of America seem pretty hopeless.
Nope this was all researched and supported by multiple things. Now your insluting me saying that my 30 years of studying the paranormal and supernatural were a lost cause.

And I have 20 years in biology, microbiology, and physiology. Not so much microbiology these days, sadly. I miss it. But keeping up requires constant continuing education.

I never said the paranormal was a lost cause.There are some very interesting things in that area. I don't put the Starchild in the paranormal realm, though. The Starchild is a biological question, pure and simple.
edit on 12/26/2011 by HappyBunny because: Fix quote tags



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I think someone new to the conversation who read your earlier posts regarding the crocoduck proving evolution would read the same thing into them that I have, namely that you really thought something like the crocoduck would prove evolution. You can backtrack and try to cover yourself by claiming it was sarcasm but, given your exhibited lack of understanding of some of the core concepts of evolution, that answer seems far less likely.


Totally OT, but I can't help thinking of the Island of Dr. Moreau or Spy Kids 2 when you guys bring up Crocoduck.


/threadjack



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





No, but irrefutable proof would be nice. If you had a grey alien skull for comparison, that would be even better.
Ya but what are you going to compare it against when you don't believe the first one is alien either? You have to understand this will always be a stalemate scenerio. No scientist could ever possibly say that something is for sure alien.




Based on your comments and responses, I'd have to say that you don't have the first clue how science works.
Now that I read it again, your right it didn't come out right. What I meant was in regards to alien research, it has to be looked at a little differently than evolution.




And you're evading the issue. My explanation is satisfactory biologically. You can't refute it, so you resort to your little alien friend.
Well if it doesn't appear to have any type of blood we have seen before, and has over 2 dozen physical character differences, what should you be thinking?




Again, I think you mean volume. And you're still evading the point that I never compared the Starchild to a Neanderthal. You didn't answer my question about how Pye deals with the simple biochemical issue that, by some towering coincidence, the aliens had just the right number of chromosomes to mate with a human woman and produce offspring.
I don't recall why neanderthall came into the picture. As far as the right number of chromosomes your assuming they couldn't possibly have the same amount as humans, because you know so much abou them.

And correct on using volume in place of mass.




Wow. You really are blind. Then again, we're never so blind as we are when we're deceiving ourselves.

It's already been explained to you how it's possible the Starchild could have adult teeth at age 5.
WTF adult teeth at age 5, is that a typo? I must have missed that. Well the dentists I spoke with couldn't explain it. Anyhow it STILL doens't explain why he had adult teeth with multiple more adult waiting to come down.

The reason this skull has adult teeth with more waiting to come down is because he is probably over 150 years in age. Just like we are suppose to live to be 1000 we coudln't possibly live with our only 2 sets of teeth.




Just admit you were wrong and get it over with, will you?
Admit that I'm wrong, when your the one that doesn't understand that the menu you provided all goes to sub catagories of NIH ????????
Please find me a service that offers what they do that is NOT part of the NIH.




And I have 20 years in biology, microbiology, and physiology. Not so much microbiology these days, sadly. I miss it. But keeping up requires constant continuing education.

I never said the paranormal was a lost cause.There are some very interesting things in that area. I don't put the Starchild in the paranormal realm, though. The Starchild is a biological question, pure and simple.
Well then you should also study up on both the paranormal as well as the supernatural because I see you made a faupau that is very common. The star child would obviously be supernatural. Just think of the song by katy perry ET. That song tells it all. Its very common that the two catagorys get confused mostly because we know very little about both of them. Anyhow I know what you meant. SC is an alien, not a ghost so thats probably the easiest way to understand.

I wanna see an alternate link that offers DNA querys.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunnyYou didn't answer my question about how Pye deals with the simple biochemical issue that, by some towering coincidence, the aliens had just the right number of chromosomes to mate with a human woman and produce offspring.


this is a perfect example of where it is obvious you haven't got a clue what you're talking about



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
science is the scientific method and nothing else...

The rest is the HISTORY of science...

Are the scientist (or those claiming), doing the research to problems or are you doing the HISTORY part

A rude curiosity...


As for the OP Yes I can... Am I posting it here... no... I intend to test it in business and make money with it...

it is not like we know it is the better answer.... (my theory covers why no missing link...)






posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





Originally posted by HappyBunnyYou didn't answer my question about how Pye deals with the simple biochemical issue that, by some towering coincidence, the aliens had just the right number of chromosomes to mate with a human woman and produce offspring.


I think whats throwing people off, and I have explained this like so many times is that SC actually tested to have human mtDNA and alien nuclear DNA. Some of the base pairs in the nuclear section did come up human but some are not. They are all coherent FYI.

There is no rule book (even though I agree in part) that says that alien DNA can or can't have any human chromosomes. Your making assumptions about something we honestly know nothing about. In the worst case scenerio, we would always have something to compare it to, and with something alien, we don't even have that. This is also why I keep saying that when it comes to proving evolution THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE ABSENCE OF MASS PROOF. With alien theorys there are plenty of reasons preventing us from not having proof. However this is by no means the reason for accepting it as such.




this is a perfect example of where it is obvious you haven't got a clue what you're talking about
Bottle would be correct because we honestly don't know anything solid about alien life.
And we wont until that day we show up at his doorstep asking for a DNA sample so that we can compare.

Also don't forget she was zygoted and this was the reason why SC was said to have human mtDNA and alien father and alien mother nuclear DNA.
edit on 26-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





It's not profiling, it's calling you on it when you try to backtrack and claim that you were just being sarcastic. It's obvious from your earlier comments that you weren't. And the fact that you're still trying to weasel it around throughout the rest of this reply is further confirmation that you weren't being sarcastic earlier..
Your profiling me and here your admitting it.




This statement confirms that you still don't understand the origin of the concept of the crocoduck. It has nothing to do with two animals from different classes mating and producing offspring. Seriously, educate yourself on the point the creationists who invented the crocoduck were trying to make and why it's been used to mock them since then.
I know it doesn't thats why I was being sarcastic.




That's closer to the original context than your mating scenario.
Well I only made it up to open your eyes and show you just how close minded you are.




Strawman argument.
I'm seriously lacking any boundries and limitations with the whole evolution picture. So next week I could be the incredible hulk.




You're using Hoyle's fallacy (note that it's called a fallacy for a reason), a fallacy regarding abiogenesis, to try and disprove evolution, a concept regarding biodiversity. They're two separate concepts. It would be just as accurate for me to state that Plato was wrong about the elements being fire, water, air, and earth because Winston Churchill promised only blood, sweat, tears, and toil.
I understand the concepts don't match, they weren't suppose to, its called an analoge, look it up and quit being so narrow minded. Geez Itero your a smart guy why are you finding such trouble in all of this.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


So here you go happy...
I was able to find some others.
DDBJ out of Japan offers the Blast base that was used in part for the SC.

So there are at least two then that I was able to find. However he used both so I'm not sure if he was just trying to pull as much resources as he could to identify it, or if they each offer different services.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Your profiling me and here your admitting it.

No, I'm just pointing out when you change your story and make things up to support your case. Both are hallmarks of the intellectually dishonest.


I know it doesn't thats why I was being sarcastic.

And I still think you're being less than truthful by saying this.


Well I only made it up to open your eyes and show you just how close minded you are.

So you lied to try and show me the truth?


I'm seriously lacking any boundries and limitations with the whole evolution picture. So next week I could be the incredible hulk.

Well at least it's a strawman argument born out of ignorance instead of intentional dishonesty. But that doesn't change the fact that you're arguing against some fantasy version of evolution that has no similarity to the actual scientific theory. That's the definition of a strawman argument.


I understand the concepts don't match, they weren't suppose to, its called an analoge, look it up and quit being so narrow minded.

I get the point you were trying to make, just pointing out that it was a particularly bad way to try and make it. Creationists typically try to attack abiogenesis as a weak point in the theory of evolution, even though they're two totally different concepts. One of their tactics is to use Hoyle's fallacy. Please note the name -- it's called Hoyle's fallacy, not Hoyle's truth, or Hoyle's theorem, or Hoyle's hypothesis, or Hoyle's law. Hoyle's fallacy or, to put it another way, "God damn, Fred! That was such an incredibly stupid and fundamentally erroneous thing to say on a scientific level that we're going to name the fallacy after you so people don't forget why it was so fundamentally stupid." It's about as educated on a scientific level as Bill O'Reilly trying to claim that we don't know what causes the tides on national television.


Geez Itero your a smart guy why are you finding such trouble in all of this.

Because of your endless chains of non sequitur tied together by butchery of the English language and decorated with statements that are so incorrect that they've passed the point of not being right and are into the fabled territory of being not even wrong?

But, at the end of the day, I have no trouble grasping what point you're trying to make. And I think it's a great story, but that's all it is until you can actually start brining objective evidence to the table. I don't see this happening any time soon, since you admitted in one of your own threads that there is no objective evidence for what you're claiming.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
*Removed*
edit on 27-12-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





Originally posted by HappyBunnyYou didn't answer my question about how Pye deals with the simple biochemical issue that, by some towering coincidence, the aliens had just the right number of chromosomes to mate with a human woman and produce offspring.


I think whats throwing people off, and I have explained this like so many times is that SC actually tested to have human mtDNA and alien nuclear DNA. Some of the base pairs in the nuclear section did come up human but some are not. They are all coherent FYI.


You are STILL not answering the question.

As to the nuDNA, tell me this. Pye is claiming that the most recent test was able to recover nuDNA; however, in 2003 they were unable to. But the 1999 test was able to recover it. Yes?

One section of DNA was found to be perfectly normal human while another piece was not found in a DNA database. Well, the BLAST database doesn't have every single little variation for every single human being over the past 1000 years, does it? It's possible that it's not in the database because it's changed so much in that time. Did you ever think of that?

Where is the reference to the 342 base pairs??? We could all do a simple search at BLAST right now...if only we had that information. Oh wait, we can't. Pye conveniently hasn't released it!

Also, you're missing the point that they only analyzed ONE gene.


There is no rule book (even though I agree in part) that says that alien DNA can or can't have any human chromosomes.

If it has human chromosomes, then it's human.


Your making assumptions about something we honestly know nothing about.

And you go too far in yours.


In the worst case scenerio, we would always have something to compare it to, and with something alien, we don't even have that.

Glad to hear you admit it.


This is also why I keep saying that when it comes to proving evolution THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE ABSENCE OF MASS PROOF. With alien theorys there are plenty of reasons preventing us from not having proof. However this is by no means the reason for accepting it as such.

You have ONE SKULL. Where's your mass proof?

But I guess that doesn't apply to you, does it? It only counts when you want it to.




Bottle would be correct because we honestly don't know anything solid about alien life.

We don't even know that alien life exists (although it's a pretty good bet that it does).



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


So here you go happy...
I was able to find some others.
DDBJ out of Japan offers the Blast base that was used in part for the SC.

So there are at least two then that I was able to find. However he used both so I'm not sure if he was just trying to pull as much resources as he could to identify it, or if they each offer different services.


I asked you which database he used...and you don't know. I find that very curious.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





No, but irrefutable proof would be nice. If you had a grey alien skull for comparison, that would be even better.
Ya but what are you going to compare it against when you don't believe the first one is alien either? You have to understand this will always be a stalemate scenerio. No scientist could ever possibly say that something is for sure alien.

Well, that puts you in a bit of a pickle, doesn't it?




Now that I read it again, your right it didn't come out right. What I meant was in regards to alien research, it has to be looked at a little differently than evolution.

Nice trying to squirm out of it. Stop twisting everything to suit you when you get caught in a lie.





And you're evading the issue. My explanation is satisfactory biologically. You can't refute it, so you resort to your little alien friend.
Well if it doesn't appear to have any type of blood we have seen before, and has over 2 dozen physical character differences, what should you be thinking?

I'd have to ask what physical differences?





Again, I think you mean volume. And you're still evading the point that I never compared the Starchild to a Neanderthal. You didn't answer my question about how Pye deals with the simple biochemical issue that, by some towering coincidence, the aliens had just the right number of chromosomes to mate with a human woman and produce offspring.
I don't recall why neanderthall came into the picture. As far as the right number of chromosomes your assuming they couldn't possibly have the same amount as humans, because you know so much abou them.

I'll tell you why Neanderthal came into the picture. I was trying to nicely explain to you that we don't even have a good handle on our ancestors and human cousins within the historical period. We are still finding more and more new hominids. They found another group a few years ago, very small like the Hobbit, that we never knew existed. This group is estimated to have lived as recently as 4500 ybp--900 ybp. And yet we knew nothing about them.

The point was this: Knowing that we're still discovering humans we didn't even know existed, it's even more of a stretch to conclude that the Starchild is alien. It is much more scientifically sound to classify it as a previously unknown human.


And correct on using volume in place of mass.

Good of you to admit it.




WTF adult teeth at age 5, is that a typo? I must have missed that. Well the dentists I spoke with couldn't explain it. Anyhow it STILL doens't explain why he had adult teeth with multiple more adult waiting to come down.

Do you have kids, by any chance? And yes, children can have adult teeth at age 5. My own daughter had her first adult tooth at 4. I think I told you this story already. Baby teeth don't have roots, so the adult teeth are there waiting to come down long before they actually do. Baby teeth actually form in utero and are below the gumline until they come in.

www.richmondfinedentistry.com.au...


The reason this skull has adult teeth with more waiting to come down is because he is probably over 150 years in age. Just like we are suppose to live to be 1000 we coudln't possibly live with our only 2 sets of teeth.

Oh my God.





Just admit you were wrong and get it over with, will you?
Admit that I'm wrong, when your the one that doesn't understand that the menu you provided all goes to sub catagories of NIH ????????
Please find me a service that offers what they do that is NOT part of the NIH.

Negative proof. Try again.




Well then you should also study up on both the paranormal as well as the supernatural because I see you made a faupau that is very common. The star child would obviously be supernatural. Just think of the song by katy perry ET. That song tells it all. Its very common that the two catagorys get confused mostly because we know very little about both of them. Anyhow I know what you meant. SC is an alien, not a ghost so thats probably the easiest way to understand.

You are comparing the Starchild to a Katy Perry song? Seriously? The Starchild is a biological organism; therefore, by definition, it is a biological question.


I wanna see an alternate link that offers DNA querys.



blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





No, I'm just pointing out when you change your story and make things up to support your case. Both are hallmarks of the intellectually dishonest.
No I think your just not recognizing when I'm being sarcastic, and I am a lot.




And I still think you're being less than truthful by saying this.
No its just that I was being sarcastic and your profiling me again.




So you lied to try and show me the truth?
I lied to make up an analoge ?????????




Well at least it's a strawman argument born out of ignorance instead of intentional dishonesty. But that doesn't change the fact that you're arguing against some fantasy version of evolution that has no similarity to the actual scientific theory. That's the definition of a strawman argument.
Well if I only had a brain, I think your profiling me yet again.




I get the point you were trying to make, just pointing out that it was a particularly bad way to try and make it. Creationists typically try to attack abiogenesis as a weak point in the theory of evolution, even though they're two totally different concepts. One of their tactics is to use Hoyle's fallacy. Please note the name -- it's called Hoyle's fallacy, not Hoyle's truth, or Hoyle's theorem, or Hoyle's hypothesis, or Hoyle's law. Hoyle's fallacy or, to put it another way, "God damn, Fred! That was such an incredibly stupid and fundamentally erroneous thing to say on a scientific level that we're going to name the fallacy after you so people don't forget why it was so fundamentally stupid." It's about as educated on a scientific level as Bill O'Reilly trying to claim that we don't know what causes the tides on national television.
Well then you havent been paying good attention because you would also know that I'm not a creationalist.




Because of your endless chains of non sequitur tied together by butchery of the English language and decorated with statements that are so incorrect that they've passed the point of not being right and are into the fabled territory of being not even wrong?
I think there is a definition for this description, its called sarcasim.




But, at the end of the day, I have no trouble grasping what point you're trying to make. And I think it's a great story, but that's all it is until you can actually start brining objective evidence to the table. I don't see this happening any time soon, since you admitted in one of your own threads that there is no objective evidence for what you're claiming.
And of course your not smart enough to realize that ataining objective evidence from biblical times is not that easy.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





You are STILL not answering the question.

As to the nuDNA, tell me this. Pye is claiming that the most recent test was able to recover nuDNA; however, in 2003 they were unable to. But the 1999 test was able to recover it. Yes?
I seem to have lost the question at this point.

To my understanding the 1999 test through trace genetics did not even have nuclear testing yet, so no, they couldn't test for it. In 2003 which I think was through labs 242, they got it all.

So the first test came up human, because they were only looking at the mtDNA. Then with the next test they got human mtDNA and alien nuclear DNA.




One section of DNA was found to be perfectly normal human while another piece was not found in a DNA database. Well, the BLAST database doesn't have every single little variation for every single human being over the past 1000 years, does it? It's possible that it's not in the database because it's changed so much in that time. Did you ever think of that?
Here is where it gets compicated. IMO ! I always understood that some parts of DNA could match other life provided there were simularitys in that species. This alien was humanoid, so it probably should have some human types of DNA. But not all.




Where is the reference to the 342 base pairs??? We could all do a simple search at BLAST right now...if only we had that information. Oh wait, we can't. Pye conveniently hasn't released it!
Thats Pyes DNA and he has that right.




Also, you're missing the point that they only analyzed ONE gene.
I missed what your talking about here.




If it has human chromosomes, then it's human.
Depends, are they talking about the mt section or the nuclear.




You have ONE SKULL. Where's your mass proof?

But I guess that doesn't apply to you, does it? It only counts when you want it to.
Well no your missing the point that humans through evolution have to have always lived here, and aliens dont. thats why I don't have mass proof and you should.




We don't even know that alien life exists (although it's a pretty good bet that it does).
Not believing in alien life at this point is the same as thinking the earth is flat.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 137  138  139    141  142  143 >>

log in

join