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.
There is no difference but you still can't prove it in a lab.
Who says it doesn't? Scientists don't artificially separate micro and macro evolution, because it's the same exact thing and there no mechanism (even hypothesized one) that would at some point step in and prevent further change.
Thats because your omitting the bible. it's possible those were brought here. No reason for me to believe that but I'm just saying.
Finding even one 100 million year old rabbit, human (or basically any other contemporary animal) fossil would disprove evolution. Yet no such discovery has ever been made among the 100s of thousands (or millions) of fossils that have been unearthed so far. This proves without a doubt that e.g. rabbits did not exist 100 million years ago, yet now they're here. However, we do see lineages and can speculate which fossils are ancestors of present day rabbits.
Google Lloyd Pye Human genetics.
I challenge this. Which region of which chromosome shows signs of being tampered with? P.s. As far as I'm aware no serious (scientific fact backed up) claim of tampering has ever been made. How about denying ignorance while reading stuff from random fringe web pages?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
There is no difference but you still can't prove it in a lab.
Who says it doesn't? Scientists don't artificially separate micro and macro evolution, because it's the same exact thing and there no mechanism (even hypothesized one) that would at some point step in and prevent further change.
I call BS on that. I think that if scientists wanted to, they could prove just about any subtle changes they wanted to. It's just an excuse, based into a theory to explain the impossible.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
Thats because your omitting the bible. it's possible those were brought here. No reason for me to believe that but I'm just saying.
Finding even one 100 million year old rabbit, human (or basically any other contemporary animal) fossil would disprove evolution. Yet no such discovery has ever been made among the 100s of thousands (or millions) of fossils that have been unearthed so far. This proves without a doubt that e.g. rabbits did not exist 100 million years ago, yet now they're here. However, we do see lineages and can speculate which fossils are ancestors of present day rabbits.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
Google Lloyd Pye Human genetics.
I challenge this. Which region of which chromosome shows signs of being tampered with? P.s. As far as I'm aware no serious (scientific fact backed up) claim of tampering has ever been made. How about denying ignorance while reading stuff from random fringe web pages?
Which means that not only should we have bones and fossils that confirm this but also be able to detect subtle changes in a lab. No lab has come forward to confirm this. It's just a lame excuse that its subtle, but yet we have bones that are millions of years old that they can test. They aren't coming up with anything because there are no changes.
How do you expect 'macro' (please also give a definition for what differentiates micro and macro) to take place in a lab, where typical experiments last some weeks (some years in most extreme cases)? This stuff requires thousands (more like 100s of thousands or millions) of years. Of course farmers have done some macro, look no further than all domesticated animals. Surely e.g. the difference between a pig and a wild boar counts as macro, e.g. they look nothing alike.
See here is where the problem is. just because fusing has been found in the wild, doesn't mean it happened naturally.
1. How can we have 2 chromosomes less than chimps and orangutangs?
Because in our ancestral lineage two chromosomes fused from their ends. The ends of chromosomes carry repetitive telomere sequences, so it's not very difficult to see this happening through homologous recombination. Contrary to his (uneducated) claim, fused chromosomes are actually quite frequent in nature. It boils down to simple chemistry. NOT A SIGN OF TAMPERING
I disagree, fusing is an advanced technique only possible in labs. We have never witnessed it occurring in the wild. You can't make an assumption that it just happens unless you can recreate it. Now as far as in a lab, there you go, we can recreate it.
2. How come humans have higher frequency of genetic defects than chimps?
Because i) our ancestral gene pool was much smaller than that of chimps, and ii) we don't even know if this claim is true, human DNA studies vastly outnumber chimp DNA studies (not much money to be made here) so it can also be just sampling effect. AGAIN: NOT A SIGN OF TAMPERING
Which could be true, but you don't know about the lab that assisted him with this.
Also, perhaps since he's not a geneticist, he completely misunderstood what mitochondrial eve was. Humans didn't come into existence 200,000 years ago, it just that the last woman to whom we can all trace our common ancestry lived around that time (this is a genetic bottleneck). Our cerebral cortex didn't grow to what it is today in 200,000 years. Its differentiation from chimp cerebral cortex began when the two lineages split millions of years ago (this is just basic f****** logic that dear Pye utterly failed to understand)!
Now hes obviously working with a lab, but I'm just suppose to take your word for it right? What lab have you worked with?
In short: this guy does not know at all what he is talking about. It was quite funny vid thou
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
Which means that not only should we have bones and fossils that confirm this but also be able to detect subtle changes in a lab. No lab has come forward to confirm this. It's just a lame excuse that its subtle, but yet we have bones that are millions of years old that they can test. They aren't coming up with anything because there are no changes.
How do you expect 'macro' (please also give a definition for what differentiates micro and macro) to take place in a lab, where typical experiments last some weeks (some years in most extreme cases)? This stuff requires thousands (more like 100s of thousands or millions) of years. Of course farmers have done some macro, look no further than all domesticated animals. Surely e.g. the difference between a pig and a wild boar counts as macro, e.g. they look nothing alike.
Those subtle changes that are seen in a lab, are changes that the species would normally do, still being the same species. We have never found any bones or fossils proving any transgression of over 5 million species on this planet.
Your trying to use the excuse that the changes cant be detected because they are subtle, and I'm saying BS.
I do agree with you on the mtDNA however.
Also, perhaps since he's not a geneticist, he completely misunderstood what mitochondrial eve was. Humans didn't come into existence 200,000 years ago, it just that the last woman to whom we can all trace our common ancestry lived around that time (this is a genetic bottleneck). Our cerebral cortex didn't grow to what it is today in 200,000 years. Its differentiation from chimp cerebral cortex began when the two lineages split millions of years ago (this is just basic f****** logic that dear Pye utterly failed to understand)!
Originally posted by itsthetooth
See here is where the problem is. just because fusing has been found in the wild, doesn't mean it happened naturally.
I disagree, fusing is an advanced technique only possible in labs. We have never witnessed it occurring in the wild. You can't make an assumption that it just happens unless you can recreate it. Now as far as in a lab, there you go, we can recreate it.
There are six segments that have been removed, inverted and reinserted. Obvious tampering.
Also, perhaps since he's not a geneticist, he completely misunderstood what mitochondrial eve was. Humans didn't come into existence 200,000 years ago, it just that the last woman to whom we can all trace our common ancestry lived around that time (this is a genetic bottleneck). Our cerebral cortex didn't grow to what it is today in 200,000 years. Its differentiation from chimp cerebral cortex began when the two lineages split millions of years ago (this is just basic f****** logic that dear Pye utterly failed to understand)!
Which could be true, but you don't know about the lab that assisted him with this.
We never evolved from chimps, your cracking me up. There has never been a shred of evidence that even supports the possibility. What there is, is speculation, based on how similliar our DNA is to chimps. 97% I believe but at the same time our DNA is also 70% matching with rats, and we look nothing like them.
Now hes obviously working with a lab, but I'm just suppose to take your word for it right? What lab have you worked with?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
There is no difference but you still can't prove it in a lab.
Who says it doesn't? Scientists don't artificially separate micro and macro evolution, because it's the same exact thing and there no mechanism (even hypothesized one) that would at some point step in and prevent further change.
I call BS on that. I think that if scientists wanted to, they could prove just about any subtle changes they wanted to. It's just an excuse, based into a theory to explain the impossible.
Which means that not only should we have bones and fossils that confirm this but also be able to detect subtle changes in a lab. No lab has come forward to confirm this.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
So since you seem to be on the top of things at least on the mtDNA, can you tell me your views on how it is that they claim to have mapped the entire genome, but seem to be withholding our true age
No, the idea of it could be the same, but it has never been proven. How are they going to prove it to be the same when they can't even witness macro evolution in a lab?
So you admit that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution, and even though evolution has been observed in numerous lifeforms in a lab, still claim that evolution somehow can't happen over a long period of time? That makes no sense at all and now you're just stretching the truth while desperately clinging on to Pye, a guy who still hasn't released his lab results, which again have nothing to do with evolution. There is no reason to ever suggest that evolution has ever stopped. It has been observed in every organism ever studied on that level. Find me one single creature that has been shown in a lab to not experience genetic mutation. That's all it would take to disprove evolution, but that will never happen, not in humans, not in lizards, not in bacteria. Evolution happens in all lifeforms, regardless of your personal beliefs on the subject. Where did all modern life come from if it didn't exist on earth during the dinosaur era? Without evolution you are faced with a dilemma. Under your theory of intervention, not just all mammals, but virtually all modern life would have to be brought here since it didn't exist in the past. There is no other possibility without evolution, which has been observed many times, and no lab work has ever contradicted it.
No there are some they have assumed show relation, none that have been tested to prove so.
We DO have bones and fossils that confirm this. Why do you keep repeating this blatant lie? It's been verified by bones, fossils and DNA.
Well that's perfect, I'm glad they got off the ground on this.
The human genome (of a few individuals) have been entirely sequenced and arranged into scaffolds, and this data is publicly available for example thru NCBI and EMBL websites. There is also a lot of data on what parts of the genome are transcribed into RNA. This is also in public domain. Nobody is withholding anything.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
No, the idea of it could be the same, but it has never been proven. How are they going to prove it to be the same when they can't even witness macro evolution in a lab?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
Well that's perfect, I'm glad they got off the ground on this.
The human genome (of a few individuals) have been entirely sequenced and arranged into scaffolds, and this data is publicly available for example thru NCBI and EMBL websites. There is also a lot of data on what parts of the genome are transcribed into RNA. This is also in public domain. Nobody is withholding anything.
So since you have all the answers, how old is the human race?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
No, the idea of it could be the same, but it has never been proven. How are they going to prove it to be the same when they can't even witness macro evolution in a lab?
No there are some they have assumed show relation, none that have been tested to prove so.