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: 68
31
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I see no reason to read or view anything on a discussion forum posted by someone that submits one post and then says they will take no further part.

If you got something from it good for you. What I got from it was bad manners from the poster.


edit on 12-11-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


that's called willful ignorance or cutting off your nose to spite your face. good luck with that


What your doing in every post on this page apears to be calling everyone ignorant which I believe is pretty ignorant in itself.

I try hard to read links provided and look at vids despite being from sites I would otherwise choose to avoid. I do not intend to watch or read anything when posted the way it was.

No sure why you are suddenly attacking everyone in the way you are. Has someone hit a nerve?

I wont be responding to anymore OT snarky comments.




posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So you decided not to answer Hole 1
Ill have to go back later to Hole 1.

If, we dont know everything was your answer you again fail because for your belief not to have holes then you must know everything.

For your idea to hold water you need evolution to work. Gene manipulation is man trying to use evolutions mechanics. 30 years of study should have at least resulted in that knowledge.
I never said evolution is impossible, just that I don't buy it in our given situation.

Hole 1 Unanswered

Hole 2

It appears that you believe we were either changed here or was brought here from elswhere. (thats a hole by the way).
I don't think so, I think when people claim they have been abducted by aliens, and we do have people dissapearing all over the globe, I think it explains the possibilitys.

If we, Humans were brought here explain the connection/relationship we have with all life on THIS planet.
Well all life does appear to have connection with all life based on the fact that all genes are complex arrangments of the same four protiens.
I think where you are missing the ball is that intervention could be the missing link to all of these creations. All life that we know of on this planet did not evolve from one another. Even if we did come from primates, who made the other life?
There are planets out there that are forming from gasses right now, and when they are done forming, there will be life on those planets.That life would all know how there existance came into being without any question. If you ever have to ask yourself how we came into existance there is only one valid answer for sure, your not from here. There is NO WAY you could NOT know where you are from unless your not from here.This is why I keep saying you guys are digging to deep while the answers should just be on the surface and everywhere.

According to a program I watched on the history channel, planets seem to just form from out of nowhere. A joke once mentioned last I wrote about this is that there is a giant celestial squid named trevor, pooping out planets. All hail to trevor.

Anyhow, I like to use the example of the anteater. The anteater is well equiped to function on this planet. He has fur to keep him warm, a long snout to sniff out ants, long claws to tear up ant hills, and a long sticky tounge to catch ants. There is no question that this critter is an ant eating machine. If he ever grew a brain one day do you think he would have any problem figureing out what his purpose is in life? Not at all. Now look at humans. Our hands would have specific purposes in design, what is that exactly, we don't know because its not here on earth.

This is why I laugh when I hear people say they know what there purpose is in life.

edit on 12-11-2011 by colin42 because: Punctuation

edit on 12-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I've actually got theories about planet formation, but that's besides the point.

Point is, there is no "missing link." Where do you get this idea?

We have even pointed out that our chromosomes match that of a chimp's, and that two of the chromosomes are simply fused. Is this not damning evidence against intervention? If intervention mixed our DNA with something else, then we would have very different chromosomes, since chromosomes are what hold the data that makes you form the way you do. All other life formed naturally as well.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Oh I have a few. IMO intervention isn't a question, it does nothing but provide answers.

It provides no more answers than a typical "god of the gaps" fallacy. It's predicated on the existence of beings for which, you've already agreed, we have no objective evidence. Then you have to provide objective evidence that they travelled here, which you haven't. Then you have to provide objective evidence that they altered our DNA, which you haven't. So there's three questions that you can't answer objectively right at the start.

Well again I think the gaps are only in not reading and understanding correctly. Given the over 30 years I have into the supernatural and paranormal, I didn't have to try to hard to understand things. If you read it and struggle with anything, this is why. Of course there is no hard core evidence of aliens silly. Scientists can never own up to something we don't have here on earth to compare with. In addition aliens don't want to be figured out, they take great steps to make sure they stay stealth. So what.... you think we had DNA scientists back in biblical times ??? I think alien technology explains it all.


When I see strong clues in the bible, our DNA and in sumerrian text telling us that intervention is what happened to us, it shocks me how people are struggling so hard to try to make sense of evolution.

Because evolution is science. In science, you can't just say "we don't know how this happened so it must have been aliens" or "we don't know how this happened so it must have been God". Science requires evidence, unlike interventionism.

I think the gaps are to wide in evoution, and it's just not possible.There was science back in biblical times. Just like the atomic bomb in soddom and ghamora.


You can probably convince yourself of anything if you work hard enough at it.

I suggest you read this statement to yourself regularly.


It reminds me of star child with Lloyd Pye. The DNA results proved that the mtdna was human but that the mother and father DNA was cohearant and not human.

You're showing how little you understand about genetics again. If the mtDNA, which comes from the mother, is human, than the mother is human. Even Pye has fessed up to that at this point. He's holding out hope that there will be enough ambiguity in the contributions from the father that he can claim the skull isn't wholly human. Keep in mind that he's already had tests performed that said that father was human, but he didn't like that answer so he kept submitting samples to labs until he got the answer he wanted.


Actually your the one missing something here. In NORMAL situations where a man and woman get together to have a baby, yes you are correct, but when a zygoat is being made it's done in a dish. I know its all overwhelming to believe that aliens are walking around in scrubs but if you would have watched the video like you claimed to, you would even get the explanation of what a zygoat is.

I'll explain it to you anyhow.
This process involves 3 people.
A mother / A father / and the surrogate mother. The mother and father are alien and the surrogate carries their baby for them. Reviewing the DNA of the child would reveal alien mother, alien father and human mtDNA



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Please try to post correctly. Posting the way you have your arguments become even harder to understand.



I don't think so, I think when people claim they have been abducted by aliens, and we do have people dissapearing all over the globe, I think it explains the possibilitys.


Your asking for a bit of a leap of faith here and that with a belief that has no holes is a poor start

If we, Humans were brought here explain the connection/relationship we have with all life on THIS planet.




I think where you are missing the ball is that intervention could be the missing link to all of these creations. All life that we know of on this planet did not evolve from one another. Even if we did come from primates, who made the other life?


That is the question you need to answer. You are the one saying 'We know life did not evolve from one another'. I am asking you to explain how if not evolution do we see the diversity around us.




There are planets out there that are forming from gasses right now, and when they are done forming, there will be life on those planets.That life would all know how there existance came into being without any question. If you ever have to ask yourself how we came into existance there is only one valid answer for sure, your not from here. There is NO WAY you could NOT know where you are from unless your not from here.This is why I keep saying you guys are digging to deep while the answers should just be on the surface and everywhere.


That makes no sense at all and I have read it a few times so what point you are trying to make is lost on me




According to a program I watched on the history channel, planets seem to just form from out of nowhere. A joke once mentioned last I wrote about this is that there is a giant celestial squid named trevor, pooping out planets. All hail to trevor.


I suggest you choose programs you watch with more care.




Anyhow, I like to use the example of the anteater. The anteater is well equiped to function on this planet. He has fur to keep him warm, a long snout to sniff out ants, long claws to tear up ant hills, and a long sticky tounge to catch ants. There is no question that this critter is an ant eating machine. If he ever grew a brain one day do you think he would have any problem figureing out what his purpose is in life? Not at all. Now look at humans. Our hands would have specific purposes in design, what is that exactly, we don't know because its not here on earth.


I disagree. If an anteater evolved the ability to reason he would definitely ask 'why am I here and what is my purpose' what your saying in effect is would he know his diet and that is completely different.

Hands dont have a specific purpose in design????

Our hands are probably the keystone of our success. Why hands are proof that we came from off world in your opinion leaves me agog.


edit on 12-11-2011 by colin42 because: Hands



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I see no reason to read or view anything on a discussion forum posted by someone that submits one post and then says they will take no further part.

If you got something from it good for you. What I got from it was bad manners from the poster.


edit on 12-11-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


that's called willful ignorance or cutting off your nose to spite your face. good luck with that


What your doing in every post on this page apears to be calling everyone ignorant which I believe is pretty ignorant in itself.

I try hard to read links provided and look at vids despite being from sites I would otherwise choose to avoid. I do not intend to watch or read anything when posted the way it was.

No sure why you are suddenly attacking everyone in the way you are. Has someone hit a nerve?

I wont be responding to anymore OT snarky comments.


not true and when someone knowingly and willfully ignores something but still has an opinion of it that by definition is ignorant



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


If your comments are aimed at me then you are wrong again. I wrote I will not look at videos in a post where the poster states in his only post he will take no further part. That is ignorant and akin to preaching.

I made no comment on the contents as I did not look at them so again your wrong.

It is your choice in a discussion forum to be preached at. My choice is to discuss what is presented. In the case of the poster in question that was not an option they gave.

If you find comfort in calling those that disagree with you ignorant as it appears so be it but it will not encourage people to discuss with you calmly any points you make. Or is that the stratergy?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Sorry I haven't taken the time to lean how to work the forum, and I just realized some things so I'll try to post better.




Your asking for a bit of a leap of faith here and that with a belief that has no holes is a poor start

If we, Humans were brought here explain the connection/relationship we have with all life on THIS planet.


Well people are going to believe in what they want to believe in, usually because of how they were brought up, or taught. I'm self taught, and did not have a strong religious upbringing. As far as our tie to other life, I know I posted about that. All life (at least that we know of) is made up of the same four protiens.




That is the question you need to answer. You are the one saying 'We know life did not evolve from one another'. I am asking you to explain how if not evolution do we see the diversity around us.


Again I think someone or something could have had there hand in creations. I could say aliens made everything but we honestly don't know everything thats out there. Maybe we are all made from Trevor the giant celestial squid.




That makes no sense at all and I have read it a few times so what point you are trying to make is lost on me


Sorry to confuse you, but I watched it myself, and its not like we know all of the answers.




I suggest you choose programs you watch with more care.


I never said I believe them all, but they were upfront about us still learning.




I disagree. If an anteater evolved the ability to reason he would definitely ask 'why am I here and what is my purpose' what your saying in effect is would he know his diet and that is completely different.

Hands dont have a specific purpose in design????

Our hands are probably the keystone of our success. Why hands are proof that we came from off world in your opinion leaves me agog.


Well if you don't agree that an anteater is well equiped to harvest ants, I don't know what to tell you. I picked an easy example so that there would be no confusion. There is no identifiable purpose with our hands because the purpose is not here on earth. Again we aren't from here. The reason is simple, hands would, or should serve a purpose in design. As an example with Sitchens idea that we were engineered specifically for mining gold, we do have opposable thumbs. It's far fetched only if you allow our living standards in the thought.

Another problem you brought up is food. The bible claims that we were provided with many things we might need to get by in life. Food, animals, etc... And it would appear to be true, we do have a lot of different food and animals. The problem is that the bible also indicates that none of these were taken from our home planet, and that earth looks nothing like home as well.

What this means is the food we eat was not INTENDED for us by our REAL creator. God was not our real creator. So this is why we struggle with diet and so forth. Had we evolved, we would be in perfect fitting with these choices.

Just to clairify, if we were on our correct home planet, you would be surrounded by things that are part of a design system that fits you and your needs. You might even be part of a food chain. Point being, what we are talking about would not have more questions, but answers, and the answers would be obvious without the need for investigation. I believe that whoever or whatever made us should be just as smart to make a planet that can sustain us.
edit on 12-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

I'm well aware what a zygote is. Maybe you should learn to spell it correctly before presuming to school someone on the details...


I'll explain it to you anyhow.

This should be good.


This process involves 3 people.

Uh-huh...


A mother / A father / and the surrogate mother. The mother and father are alien and the surrogate carries their baby for them. Reviewing the DNA of the child would reveal alien mother, alien father and human mtDNA

You're showing your ignorance again. What you're referring to here is called a gestational surrogacy -- where a woman carries a zygote that's not hers to term -- and there is absolutely no genetic contribution from the surrogate mother in this case. None. So the mtDNA in the scenario you describe here wouldn't be human.

Honestly, your lack of knowledge on this is as funny as when you refer to nucleotides as proteins.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





You're showing your ignorance again. What you're referring to here is called a gestational surrogacy -- where a woman carries a zygote that's not hers to term -- and there is absolutely no genetic contribution from the surrogate mother in this case. None. So the mtDNA in the scenario you describe here wouldn't be human.

Honestly, your lack of knowledge on this is as funny as when you refer to nucleotides as proteins.


So you must have also not watched the video, and realized that human mtDNA was present in the skull. It only proved that his birth was carried by a human while the nuclear DNA is showing it to not be human. Did you miss that too?

At least your agreeing its not human. Sorry my earlier confusion was a typo and that was allready explained.


edit on 12-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So you must have also not watched the video, and realized that human mtDNA was present in the skull. It only proved that his birth was carried by a human while the nuclear DNA is showing it to not be human. Did you miss that too?

And if there's human mtDNA, then the mother is (say it with me now) human. Not an alien using a human as a surrogate. But Pye didn't like the results from the testing from 1999 that said it was human nuDNA, or the "inconclusive" results from 2003, or the "inconclusive" results from 2006... so he keeps taking new samples of a skull that has absolutely no vetted chain of custody and resubmitting them until he gets the answer that he likes. And if the nuDNA was already "proven" to be something other than human, then why is Pye begging for another $7M in funding?

Seriously, wake up and smell the male bovine fecal matter already.

I like how you always go back and edit your posts after they've already been replied to so you can slip in little extra comments.


At least your agreeing its not human. Sorry my earlier confusion was a typo and that was allready explained.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills are showing again. Here's what I said:


You're showing your ignorance again. What you're referring to here is called a gestational surrogacy -- where a woman carries a zygote that's not hers to term -- and there is absolutely no genetic contribution from the surrogate mother in this case. None. So the mtDNA in the scenario you describe here wouldn't be human.

But since even Pye admits that the mtDNA is human, than the mother is human. You're laboring under the misconception that in a gestational surrogacy some genetic material is passed from the gestational surrogate -- this is false. And since the only conclusive test on the nuDNA says that the father is human, then (say it with me) the skull is that of a human.
edit on 12/11/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





And if there's human mtDNA, then the mother is (say it with me now) human. Not an alien using a human as a surrogate. But Pye didn't like the results from the testing from 1999 that said it was human nuDNA, or the "inconclusive" results from 2003, or the "inconclusive" results from 2006... so he keeps taking new samples of a skull that has absolutely no vetted chain of custody and resubmitting them until he gets the answer that he likes. And if the nuDNA was already "proven" to be something other than human, then why is Pye begging for another $7M in funding?

Seriously, wake up and smell the male bovine fecal matter already.


Wow I have to admitt that in the past I haven't been the smartest person with understanding things but I can clearly see your dropping the ball on this one. The skull does not have human mother DNA. It has alien mother, alien father and human mtDNA. Anotherwords shes not the mother, just the surrogate.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





But since even Pye admits that the mtDNA is human, than the mother is human. You're laboring under the misconception that in a gestational surrogacy some genetic material is passed from the gestational surrogate -- this is false. And since the only conclusive test on the nuDNA says that the father is human, then (say it with me) the skull is that of a human.

Nope actually I understand and agree genetics aren't passed on. Where did you see a test that the father was found to be human, I want to see that part.
I guess where you got lost in all of this is your ASSUMING that the mother is the same as the surrogate. In normal situations you would be correct. But not in a lab. It's proof that this aliens life, had intervention, and that help involved a human surrogate. And this poor soul happened to die right here on earth leaving all the precious evidence to us to find. If you ever wanted proof that aliens exist, your looking at it, you found it. If you ever wanted proof aliens come here and preform medical procedures on us, your also looking at it.

It basically proves all of the storys we hear about women claiming to get abducted and being impregnated.


edit on 12-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I did not disagree with you that an an eater is well equiped eat ants. Where I disagreed was that if the ant eater evolved the ability to reason (part of your example) he would not just say 'I eat ants therefore I am'. He would ask the universal question. Why am I here.

Do you say after eating a hamburger I am McDonalds?

No Identifiable purpose for hands? The human being is a jack of all trades. He uses tools to survive. Without hands he could not use tools or make tools. Their part in our ability to survive in this role is essential.

Spend a day without using your hands and see how that day goes.

Sorry I am not a great reader of the Bible but I remember nothing about other animals not being from the same planet.

We struggle with our diet because our food is manufactured and our life styles today do not burn off the calories we take in. This is where the problem lays because we have moved away from the hunter/gatherer life style we evolved into.



Just to clairify, if we were on our correct home planet, you would be surrounded by things that are part of a design system that fits you and your needs. You might even be part of a food chain. Point being, what we are talking about would not have more questions, but answers, and the answers would be obvious without the need for investigation. I believe that whoever or whatever made us should be just as smart to make a planet that can sustain us.


No we are part of an eco system that we exploit. Man has often been part of the food chain and only our tools and weapons have made that less likely.

Yes you hole less ideas do bring up more questions than answers obvious by you never supplying any.

You clinging onto the idea that answers will be obvious without the need for investigation is the base of all your errors and wildly changing reasoning.

In this post alone you say now there are two creators one for man and one for everything else yet end it with our creator would be clever enough to provide a planet and eco system for us.

This same god would I imagine then be clever enough to conjure up gold. In fact he should be clever enough to fix his atmosphere without it.

You still have not addressed the diversity we see arround us or who intervened to produce those that produced us.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Wow I have to admitt that in the past I haven't been the smartest person with understanding things but I can clearly see your dropping the ball on this one.

Hardly.


The skull does not have human mother DNA. It has alien mother, alien father and human mtDNA. Anotherwords shes not the mother, just the surrogate.

Well, then you and Pye are in disagreement. He's clearly stated that the mother is human based on the fact that the mtDNA is human.

Let me try to make this a little simpler for you. There are two basic kinds of surrogacy -- traditional, in which the genetic mother of the child is the woman carrying the child to term, and gestational, in which the genetic mother of child is not the woman carrying the child to term.

If, as you say, we were dealing with a gestational surrogacy, in which an embryo that was the product of two aliens was implanted in a human woman for her to carry to term, then there would be no human mtDNA in the skull. There is zero genetic material transfered from the surrogate mother to the embryo in a gestational pregnancy. In other words, or "anotherwords" as you would say, the presence of human mtDNA says that the genetic mother of the child is human.

Got it now?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Well, then you and Pye are in disagreement. He's clearly stated that the mother is human based on the fact that the mtDNA is human.


Where exactly are you getting this from ??? Can you please give me an exact time on the video where you got this.




If, as you say, we were dealing with a gestational surrogacy, in which an embryo that was the product of two aliens was implanted in a human woman for her to carry to term, then there would be no human mtDNA in the skull. There is zero genetic material transfered from the surrogate mother to the embryo in a gestational pregnancy. In other words, or "anotherwords" as you would say, the presence of human mtDNA says that the genetic mother of the child is human.


Once again I think you lost something along the way. It was probably my fault for using the word surrogate but I assumed you might not know what a zygoat is. I'm at a loss here on how and where you are getting him saying the mother is human, and he had the same missunderstanding with wikipedia not getting this as well.

I watched it again, and stick to my understanding. It's alien mother, alien father and human mtDNA.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Where exactly are you getting this from ??? Can you please give me an exact time on the video where you got this.

I'm getting this from Pye's own website. Maybe you should try reading it instead of relying on videos for all of your information. Here's the quote from his website:


The fact that the Starchild’s mtDNA apparently belonged to a normal human haplogroup indicated that its maternal line was entirely human.

In other words, or "anotherwords" as you're so fond of saying, the skull had a human mother. Not a human surrogate in a gestational surrogacy, because then it wouldn't have mtDNA from a "normal human haplogroup", but a human genetic mother. Not an alien one.


Once again I think you lost something along the way.

I think I'm showing pretty clearly that I'm not the one who is lost.


It was probably my fault for using the word surrogate but I assumed you might not know what a zygoat is.

I'll believe that you understand what a zygote is when you can spell it correctly.


I'm at a loss here on how and where you are getting him saying the mother is human, and he had the same missunderstanding with wikipedia not getting this as well.

Misunderstanding? It's pretty clear from the statements on the website that the mother is genetically human. I think you're the one not understanding.


I watched it again, and stick to my understanding. It's alien mother, alien father and human mtDNA.

That's fine. You stick to your "understanding". I'll stick to the facts -- human mtDNA means the mother of skull was human, not alien. Unless you can explain the mechanism by which human mtDNA would be transfered to an already-fertilized embryo.
edit on 12/11/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





The fact that the Starchild’s mtDNA apparently belonged to a normal human haplogroup indicated that its maternal line was entirely human.



Which is exactly right, and your still not understanding whats going on here. mtDNA is who was carrying the child, NOT necessarily who you would call the mother.



In other words, or "anotherwords" as you're so fond of saying, the skull had a human mother. Not a human surrogate in a gestational surrogacy, because then it wouldn't have mtDNA from a "normal human haplogroup", but a human genetic mother. Not an alien one.


Depends on which female your referring to as the mother.
mtDNA reveals who carried the child, not necessarly who the mother is.




Misunderstanding? It's pretty clear from the statements on the website that the mother is genetically human. I think you're the one not understanding.


Yes the carrier was human, the child wasn't, and the only way that can happen is from a zygote.




That's fine. You stick to your "understanding". I'll stick to the facts -- human mtDNA means the mother of skull was human, not alien. Unless you can explain the mechanism by which human mtDNA would be transfered to an already-fertilized embryo.


You have this part right, at least that the mtDNA was human but the nuclear DNA was not. How do you explain that ?????????? I think Pye explained it pretty well in the video, and I understood it, and the explanation fits also with how it was explained in his human genetics video and also fits with what I read from the Assam tribune. We know the carrier was human, the skull isn't which means this person was zygoted. Seriously I think your just screwing with me because I just had a hardcore christian that refuses to believe in aliens watch this and she totally got it.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Which is exactly right, and your still not understanding whats going on here. mtDNA is who was carrying the child, NOT necessarily who you would call the mother.


No, the mtDNA is the DNA from the mother's embryo cells, which accepts the sperm and combines with the father's DNA. It is not the incubator DNA. Anything could incubate if it was able to support the growing fetus. It would not change the DNA contributors of the mother and father.

I see now where you're so confused. You think that the mother adds DNA after conception, which is simply not true. Conception is WHEN the mother's DNA mixes with the father's DNA.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Which is exactly right, and your still not understanding whats going on here. mtDNA is who was carrying the child, NOT necessarily who you would call the mother.


No, the mtDNA is the DNA from the mother's embryo cells, which accepts the sperm and combines with the father's DNA. It is not the incubator DNA. Anything could incubate if it was able to support the growing fetus. It would not change the DNA contributors of the mother and father.

I see now where you're so confused. You think that the mother adds DNA after conception, which is simply not true. Conception is WHEN the mother's DNA mixes with the father's DNA.


Ok and what if the embryo cells and the mother are two different things. mtDNA only keeps information on the females side, and has no interaction with males. Star childs mtDNA is not matching with his mothers DNA. Who bares the child and who created him are not one in the same in this case. I'm sure I'm understanding mtDNA correctly. mtDNA and nuclear DNA are not one in the same, and in normal circumstances they are the same marker but star childs mother was not the same person that carried him.

If you refer back to the 6 minute mark on the video Pye explains how this is possible.
At 7 minutes he explains how a zygote works.

edit on 12-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join