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.
Originally posted by colin42
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?
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.
Depends on which female your referring to as the mother.
mtDNA reveals who carried the child, not necessarly who the mother is.
Yes the carrier was human, the child wasn't, and the only way that can happen is from a zygote.
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.
ever heard of mitochondrial disease?
Originally posted by iterationzero
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.
reply to post by iterationzero
Text
No, the results regarding the nuDNA are "inconclusive", which means that Pye tossed out the first set of results that showed the father was human and continues to have it tested until he gets the answer he likes.
How do I explain that both the mtDNA and nuDNA show that the skull is from a human, but that Pye keeps having it tested because he's not getting the answer he wants?
You mean that Assam Tribune article that we're all still waiting for you to provide a link to? Because this is the first time you've mentioned that Pye was somehow referenced in the Assam Tribune article.
Again, if the zygote was from an alien father and an alien mother but being carried by a human mother, then it wouldn't have human mtDNA. It would have alien mtDNA. Assuming that aliens would even have mitochondria in their cellular structure.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
The star child was not a product of sexual union, maybe thats a better way to explain it.
So, basically, you won't accept any idea unless it conforms to your current view on the matter. Unless it is proof of aliens, it is fake. Yup. That's reasonable. That is a logical thing to do! You just ignore that the "star child" had human DNA, and you say "well, the aliens must have mixed their genetics with the child." So where's the alien DNA, huh? Where is it? How does this have anything to with the topic of whether evolution can lead to the diversification of life on Earth by natural selection and time?
How do you explain dinosaurs away? Satan?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Look at how well we are evolving...
I just watched on the news how doctors are now recomending that kids as young as 9 to 11 to get there cholesterol checked.
Just look at us evolve.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Everything I watched said he was able to get coherent base pairs from all of it. Please direct me to where you learned anything was inconclusive.
Your wrong and should watch the explanation again.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
So, basically, you won't accept any idea unless it conforms to your current view on the matter. Unless it is proof of aliens, it is fake. Yup. That's reasonable. That is a logical thing to do! You just ignore that the "star child" had human DNA, and you say "well, the aliens must have mixed their genetics with the child." So where's the alien DNA, huh? Where is it? How does this have anything to with the topic of whether evolution can lead to the diversification of life on Earth by natural selection and time?
How do you explain dinosaurs away? Satan?
Well it proves beyond a doubt that not only do aliens exist but there is intervention still going on probably as far back as biblical times.
There was NO human mother DNA in the star child, there was human mtDNA and thats different. The alien DNA was found in the mother and father.
I haven't given much thought to dinosaurs except that the great flood probably took them out.
What this has to do with evolution is that it once again proves that intervention has, and continues to happen.
Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by bottleslingguy
Yes, I have. And this is not what itsthetooth was describing, though I'm sure he'll claim it was.
In the scenario from the article you linked, female 1 and male 1 are donating nuDNA and female 2 is donating her egg. The mtDNA of the child would be that of female 2.
In itsthetooth's scenario, female 1 (alien) and male 1 (alien) placed an already fertilized egg into female 2 (human) in what's called a gestational surrogacy. The mtDNA of the child in this scenario would be that of female 1.
So you still haven't shown the mechanism by which mtDNA would be transfered from the woman carrying the child in a gestational surrogacy because the article you linked isn't about gestational surrogacy.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
As others have correctly noticed, if a couple use a surrogate, then the resulting baby won't have any DNA from that surrogate. And given that the DNA of that child has tested positive for human DNA (and human DNA only), we can conclude that both parents were 100% human. The skull is easily explained too as it fits PERFECTLY considering that child suffered from hydrocephalus.
IF THE SKULL HAS THREE PARENTS THAT MEANS THERE WAS GENETIC TAMPERING GOING ON 900 YEARS AGO
Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School concludes that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and that the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.
DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes".[4] Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.
who cares what itsthetooth is describing?
I have to say it again: you are nitpicking and wasting time on some little detail that someone might have misspoken on or doesn't completely understand, and then you either miss or ignore the bigger picture.
IF THE SKULL HAS THREE PARENTS THAT MEANS THERE WAS GENETIC TAMPERING GOING ON 900 YEARS AGO
the mechanism obviously was by someone who needed to pass on chosen genes for some reason.
The father is alien and the mother was alien.
The surrogate mother was one of our common haplotypes.
You can extrapolate from that whatever you want and actually it blows everything out of the water because it is something people like you can't get around.
I know you'll try and use all kinds of words or maybe you'll just ignore it and argue about something else until someone else brings it up and you'll start all over again until maybe they get to this point in which again you'll ignore it and move on.
It's simple and typical of people who either won't or can't go there.
"To the best of my knowledge, the top lab in the world for what we need done is the Kureha Special Laboratory in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture. That's about 200 kilometers northeast of Tokyo. What I need to determine is whether or not we can trust the results of any analysis we get from them. This was no different during the long struggle to find the proper DNA lab. Just because a lab exists, that doesn't mean we can trust any result they give us. If one person working on the analysis has a private agenda that is strongly antithetical to what we're trying to accomplish, we're toast. Such tests are too easy to sabotage. We might as well not even try it."