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: 143
31
<< 140  141  142    144  145  146 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
isn't every species related?


i mean in the sense of those similarity... like amino acids.
edit on 28-12-2011 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2011 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I really don't appreciate the constant dishonesty. WE ARE SEEING THEM HAPPEN TODAY. What exactly do you think race is? Again, you ignore this point, as you have every single time its been brought up and then rehash your original nonsensical argument without addressing a single point made. LOL at ANY article or lecture I posted being called "inconclusive". Please post proof of this. Evolution is conclusive, both in humans and in other creatures on earth. Tons of evidence has been posted and you did not respond to it, you just argue in circles and repeat your original arguments.
Well I'm not ignoreing you, I have responded to everything. I just don't buy a different race as a different species. Now you ask, it was pages ago, send the link again.




What was I wrong about? Holy fallacy machine, batman. Stop straw manning me. I never claimed the purpose of medicine was solely to extend life,
Oh well was there a different purpose, please share.




Your argument is a non sequitur. You claimed that humans cannot survive without medicine and were proven wrong.
Depends on how you look at it. If you think people living up to the age of 10 is not dying then your correct. IMO I think not, especially when they don't reach mature age to reproduce. So no, your wrong.




Again here you are pushing your personal beliefs as facts and ignoring every single counterpoint against you, while changing the subject. It must be nice to live in your world where every thing you belief is automatically fact and everyone else is wrong no matter what evidence or facts are posted.
I don't think people dying before becoming an adult because they haven't recieved any vaccinations is my personal belief.

If I'm so wrong then serisouly you need to take on our medical science and let them all know just how wrong they are and wasting all of our time with all of the treatment.




It could also be from Joe the magical plumber doing his handy work on the universal sewer system. This thread is not about COULD BEs. It's about WHAT IS. Everything has been backed up about evolution while you have failed at providing a single piece of evidence for your theory. Why?
Well I appreciate your candor but no one has presented me with anything in evolution that seems to be what is. In fact the links I have been provided with had detours making it obvious they were not fact.
Like saying the findings are inconclusive, or still under investigation, and my favorite, being just a postulated theory.
I'm sorry but I have to be on your same drive for answers for this, if it doesn't look plausible, it probably isn't.
Speciation has NEVER been witnessed or forced in humans, every wonder why?
We think we might know that we were related to primates before we were human. Humans have like 4 times the brain voume compared to a monkey. How the hell did that happen?

We used to live in a situation where we fit in with nature, had a suited diet, and interacted wtih the other life. Now we kill them and are being rejected by the planet. Why did we decided to give up all of our nice ties to live without even having a diet meant for us, why did we decided to dissassociate ourselves from all the other life.
It's simple, we aren' from here. Never were, never will be. This planet will continue to reject us, and the harder we push, the harder it will push back. This is why we need to be vaccinated to live, Mother earth wants us off here.
We were placed here against our will and desire and we are stuck here.
We are castaways with no knowledge or means to get back home.
Now when you reply about this dont attack me for having fantasy beliefs. Read it again and tell me what happiness I'm suppose to get out of it.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





so, you are saying that within this project there is a certain time period when a lot of viral activity was going on and it targeted certain chimp lines but no other species and they see it but have no explanation for it?

Or are we just assuming that it's simply viruses that change things on that large of a scale?

I mean have they found the time period, because that would be interesting and it would really suck to have all that info and just stop at "yep...says we used to be chimps....NEXT PROJECT".... which is how a lot of evolutionists read it.

When is it EVER that simple?
I have heard many different things, so hopefully anyone will correct me if I'm out of bounds.
GMO's and exposure to different things can cause organisims to change.
And its true, for example if you expose a living creature to radiation it will change, but what else usually happens with that as well ????
Radiation is the ONLY plausible scenerio I can swallow that could make changes in the ways needed to get us from say primates to humans. Where it falls very short is these are always in the form of defects. So in other words we should have 3 heads and 2 fingers on one hand and 16 on the other. But we aren't like that. We are pretty decent actually.
Deformities are always visible in those subject to radiation, where are our deformities. Well what they are saying is the changes are the deformities. In other words, we got smarter as a defect, all of the differences are defects.
It's got to be the biggest crock I have ever heard.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





isn't every species related?


i mean in the sense of those similarity... like amino acids.
Well thats the whole point. Assumptions are being made that we all evolved from slime, and are all related just because we share the same DNA. We share 70% of the same DNA with a rat, but are we related? We share 97% of the same DNA with primates, does it mean we are related? No it doesn't. First of all that 3% diff in DNA with primates is Millions of genes. They are trying to convince us that a smart virus knew exactly how, and what DNA to alter and went to work making us.

And just to give you an example of another scenerio that could have caused this is simply a creator using recycled parts.
edit on 28-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Hey Rocket man....WE ARE PRIMATES! LOOK IT UP! This statement alone shows how little you know about the subject of which you speak.

And FYI...the two things that cause a chemical reaction to occur is Electicity and Radiation such as UV wave lengths that allow your skin pigments to darken when you get a tan. Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





so, you are saying that within this project there is a certain time period when a lot of viral activity was going on and it targeted certain chimp lines but no other species and they see it but have no explanation for it?

Or are we just assuming that it's simply viruses that change things on that large of a scale?

I mean have they found the time period, because that would be interesting and it would really suck to have all that info and just stop at "yep...says we used to be chimps....NEXT PROJECT".... which is how a lot of evolutionists read it.

When is it EVER that simple?
I have heard many different things, so hopefully anyone will correct me if I'm out of bounds.
GMO's and exposure to different things can cause organisims to change.
And its true, for example if you expose a living creature to radiation it will change, but what else usually happens with that as well ????
Radiation is the ONLY plausible scenerio I can swallow that could make changes in the ways needed to get us from say primates to humans. Where it falls very short is these are always in the form of defects. So in other words we should have 3 heads and 2 fingers on one hand and 16 on the other. But we aren't like that. We are pretty decent actually.
Deformities are always visible in those subject to radiation, where are our deformities. Well what they are saying is the changes are the deformities. In other words, we got smarter as a defect, all of the differences are defects.
It's got to be the biggest crock I have ever heard.



what if it was a type of radiation that is not... I guess i want to say crude?... but a more perfected type of radiation.


edit on 28-12-2011 by BlackSatinDancer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





Hey Rocket man....WE ARE PRIMATES! LOOK IT UP! This statement alone shows how little you know about the subject of which you speak.

And FYI...the two things that cause a chemical reaction to occur is Electicity and Radiation such as UV wave lengths that allow your skin pigments to darken when you get a tan. Split Infinity
We are NOT primates OMG look up primate in wiki.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackSatinDancer
 





what if it was a type of radiation that is not... I guess i want to say crude?... but a more perfected type of radiation.
Ok now that could be possible. But again it has to be armed to carry such things and have mega intelligence. Look at it like this, we are just still recently learning about DNA and this idea your thinking of would have to know exactly what its doing, and make decisions, and execute changes to DNA, and be stealth because we aint ever seen him.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





Hey Rocket man....WE ARE PRIMATES! LOOK IT UP! This statement alone shows how little you know about the subject of which you speak.

And FYI...the two things that cause a chemical reaction to occur is Electicity and Radiation such as UV wave lengths that allow your skin pigments to darken when you get a tan. Split Infinity
We are NOT primates OMG look up primate in wiki.


You have got to be kidding me! Google primates human and it shows you on a million sites! Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Another fine example of one of the following: your complete and total lack of reading comprehension skills or your complete and total lack of honesty or your complete and total trolling this thread. From the wiki page you just linked:


Order Primates has traditionally been divided into two main groupings: prosimians and anthropoids (simians). Prosimians have characteristics more like those of the earliest primates, and include the lemurs of Madagascar, lorisiforms and tarsiers. Simians include the monkeys, apes and humans.
(Emphasis mine)

There it is in black and white from your own source, humans are primates. If you go to the wiki page for simian, you'll see a breakdown of the taxonomic classifications below the order primate, ending with the following:


Family Hominidae: great apes, including humans
(Emphasis mine)

There it is in black and white a second time, humans are within the order primates and in the family hominidae, along with the rest of the great apes. If you go to the wiki page for the family hominidae, which you'll hopefully remember is a family within the order primates, you'll find:


The Hominidae, as the term is used here, form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees (Pan), gorillas (Gorilla), humans (Homo), and orangutans (Pongo).
(Emphasis mine)

There it is in black and white a third time, humas are within the order primates, within the family hominidae, and within the genus homo. If you go to the wiki pages for either genus Homo or species H. sapien, you'll find taxonomic information on the right side of the page that clearly shows that our entire genus and, more specifically, our species is within the order primates.

Is this clear enough for you yet?
edit on 28/12/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Given that you're using "gene" and "base pair" interchangeably when they describe two different things, you should think about taking a step back and actually learning the science you're trying to use to support your case. This is as inaccurate a statement as when you referred to the nucleobases that make up DNA as proteins in another thread.

The human genome contains about 23k protein-encoding genes. It's estimated that 1.5% of our genome consists of encoding genes. That means that our total genome contains about 1.5M genes. A 3% difference on a gene level with another species would only be about 45k genes, not millions. If you're talking about base pairs, we have about 3B bp in our genome, so a 3% difference would be about 90M bp. But a gene isn't a base pair and a base pair isn't a gene.

Between this, your recently displayed lack of understanding that humans are primates, and your earlier displayed lack of understanding that plants and animals aren't in the same taxonomic family, how can you possibly be sure that you're accurately reading your source materials or even really understanding the implications of them? You can say "in my opinion" all you want, but we're not talking about matters of opinion here, we're talking about matters of fact. And you're just compounding factual error upon factual error at this point.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by uva3021
 


Primates are NOT human.
en.wikipedia.org...

And no we can't have sex with them to repoduce. Your welcome to try but it's allready been determined that it doesn't work.

So the question is how did we evolve from them when we have selectively seperated ourselves from the rest of life here on earth?
Do you realize that our smile is no longer in sync with all the other life here. When anything else on this planet smiles, its usually a sign of agression. We don't have any food that we can claim for sure is ours, especially cows milk. So why did we decided to distance ourselves from the rest of life on this planet, distance ourselves from having a fitted diet. Why did we seperate our social agenda from the rest of the planet. Can someone explain this to me? Because the only thing I keep coming to is that we aren' from here. It's unanimous in everything I look at.



The reason you don't see is because you don't understand that we human have managed to manipulate our environment. We're no longer subject to it on a day to day basis like other animals.

Humans no longer need to show teeth as a sign of agression, though we still do, but our eyes and other body language tells the story. In fact so much of what's going on in the human mind is shown through our eyes that we have become the only animal with the whites always on display so that at any given time the iris gives the truth away. We started doing this when we started talking because we can lie with words. Most of our communication is done visually not verbally but the movement is very minute.

If you study books on human body language you will find that all the things you say we don't have are actually still there.

Did you know that there's ants which harvest like we do? Did you know that there's ants that milk aphids? Does that mean that ants are aliens? No it means that they've managed to manipulate their environment. Not to the level we have but they've done it. Humans aren't the only ones who milk cows. An aphid is an ants cow.

Anyone knows to not take notice of wikki. We are primates and a member of the great ape family.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Nope. The 1999 test got the nuDNA, which showed the child had an X and Y chromosome, proving it is a human male and that his father was also human. Pye later claimed this test was invalid due to contamination. In the 2003 test, after six attempts they were (conveniently) unable to recover the nuDNA even while getting the mtDNA.

Good luck with this line of reasoning, HB. The duplicity of Pye regarding his test results and his outright admission that he's looking for a lab that will say it's alien DNA before they've even analyzed it have been pointed out to itsthetooth by myself and several others during the course of this thread. I'm sure you can guess what the response was.

I know you're right and I know it's hopeless.
Nothing will convince them that Pye is just a con man.

ETA: He can use the lack of recovery of nuDNA in the 2003 to invalidate the 1999 result--and say that we don't know if there really was a Y chromosome or not because the result couldn't be reproduced.

Convenient, isn't it?
edit on 12/28/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





I asked you which database he used...and you don't know. I find that very curious.
Some of his slides showed him using BLAST and others using NIH.

Just for the record, BLAST is part of NIH.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Nope. The 1999 test got the nuDNA, which showed the child had an X and Y chromosome, proving it is a human male and that his father was also human. Pye later claimed this test was invalid due to contamination. In the 2003 test, after six attempts they were (conveniently) unable to recover the nuDNA even while getting the mtDNA.
Can you give me some pinpoint referencing on this cause you like the 4th person that has said this and I must have totally missed it.


How about right on Pye's website? See here:

www.starchildproject.com...




That is one hell of an assumption, don't you think?
Not at all, in fact there is even a name for it, its called "overlap" and we share 70% overlap with rats, and 97% with primates.

I was talking about your alien assumption, not the portion we share with rats.





If an alien has the same DNA as humans, even in part, you will NEVER prove it to be alien. Ever.
Depends on how well you understand the DNA your looking at. We share 70% identicle DNA with Rats, do you think they can tell us apart? We share 97% matched DNA with primates, can we tell them apart?

We've moved beyond the morphological, can't you tell? You're the one who's hyping up the DNA "evidence." And morphologically, the child is human. Really.





You just shot yourself in the foot big time.
Not at all, its just a hell of a lot more complex than you were thinking.

No, it's really very simple. You're the one who's making it complicated because you don't want to believe what's in front of your face.





And you haven't stopped to wonder WHY he hasn't released it? It's supposed to be his crowning achievement, his claim to fame, his I'll-be-in-the-history-books-forever piece of evidence, right? You'd think he'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
Well he couldn't be holding back to make money thats for sure, and I laugh everytime I hear he is doing this to sell books. Whats the name of the book? I never bought one.

How about this plea right on Pye's homepage?


The Starchild Project is currently seeking major funding for complete genome sequencing and documentary production. If you or someone you know personally may be interested, please email contact@starchildproject.com.


He's not only selling books, he's even selling T shirts.

Click to buy the ebook.





One gene, 342 base pairs.
To my memory this was the coherent non matching base pair right? This is why your getting so lost, again your not allowing overlap. And you need to understand why you have to be flexible in this area. If DNA programmed an arm in a human and a primate or humanoid period, that section of DNA is probably going to be identicle. But when you find something that doesn't match, thats when you know its not human.

And you obviously don't know the difference between a base pair and a gene.





No, it doesn't depend. It has an X and a Y.

Well it depends on if they pulled this out of the mtDNA or the nuclear DNA and your also making assumptions that it has to not have x and y chroms in order to be alien. You don't know, no one knows for sure what alien DNA is or isn't suppose to look like, is my point. We only know when we compare it to human that if its different, its not human, thats all we know.

The 1999 test showed a Y chromosome. Period, end of story.

If it doesn't have to have an X and Y to be alien, then the presence of the X and Y shows it's not alien. Ergo, it's human. Finite, the end, goodbye.




You know, only children think in such black and white terms. But that's what you do best, isn't it? Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an automatic flat-earther?
Would your prefer narrow minded?


If the evidence showed the Starchild to be anything but human, I'd definitely be interested. But the evidence doesn't show that. Keep deluding yourself--that's up to you.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





You have got to be kidding me! Google primates human and it shows you on a million sites! Split Infinity
Not that googles always correct but all I get from wiki is apes and gorrilas.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I question the sites your referencing. are they evolution related sites perhaps? and why doesn't wiki concur?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

That's a blatant lie given the information that I just made available to you using the link you provided.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I don't recall indicating base pairs were genes.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Then you obviously didn't click the links. The site I'm referencing is Wikipedia. In fact, it's the exact wiki page that you claimed said primates aren't human in this post. From the third paragraph of the link you provided:


Order Primates has traditionally been divided into two main groupings: prosimians and anthropoids (simians). Prosimians have characteristics more like those of the earliest primates, and include the lemurs of Madagascar, lorisiforms and tarsiers. Simians include the monkeys, apes and humans.

So are you a liar, a troll, or just stupid? Because those seem to be the only three possibilities when you claim the exact opposite of the information provided on a page that you yourself linked to.




top topics



 
31
<< 140  141  142    144  145  146 >>

log in

join