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: 69
31
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

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?



1: I don't call everyone here ignorant. Iterationzero just called somebody ignorant in his post so don't act like a prima dona. People use it and imply it in many was around here, sorry to break the bad news to ya. I said specifically in relation to your choice as to not watch a video and be able to make up your own mind of it's relevance, that that was willful ignorance. When I feel like turning a blind eye it challenges me to keep looking at both sides evenly and keep checking the data.

2:Ohhhh, the veiled "troll" insult hunh?
how about you watch the videos now just so we can keep this discussion going?




posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post 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.

Wrong again. You have it exactly backwards from reality. The mtDNA of the child comes from the genetic mother i.e. the female who contributed her genetic material to the zygote, regardless of whether it was she or another female who carried the child.


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

See above.


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

According to Pye, the child was half human. I even showed you the quote from his website where he states that.


You have this part right, at least that the mtDNA was human but the nuclear DNA was not.

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 you explain that ??????????

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?


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.

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.


We know the carrier was human, the skull isn't which means this person was zygoted.

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.


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.

And I care about this why exactly?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

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.
ever heard of mitochondrial disease?

abcnews.go.com...-Xs


maybe all of us humanoid species suffer from genetic entropy and that's why we're always tampering with our genes?

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



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   


Text
reply to post by iterationzero
 





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.


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.




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?


Now I know your just messing with me, the video is clear they don't match. They should if they are human and the first people that tested were the only ones that were inconclusive.




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.


I'm referring to how mtDNA works.




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.


Your wrong and should watch the explanation again.

"These diseases might be prevented by altering human embryos, which are the product of two mothers and one father, the researchers said.

Mitochondria -- the parts of cells that convert food into energy -- have their own DNA which is separate from that in a cell's nucleus. British researchers today are reporting a potential new technique to spare thousands of children each year from a group of deadly inheritable diseases known collectively as mitochondrial disease.

These diseases might be prevented by altering human embryos, which are the product of two mothers and one father, the researchers said."

abcnews.go.com...





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



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


The star child was not a product of sexual union, maybe thats a better way to explain it.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

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?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

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.


That's because we're idiots. We're not designed to eat carbs. Remove wheat and sugars from the diet, focus on higher levels of healthy fats, and it will bring you to the health we had through our evolution, eating meats and such.

Look up Fat Head on Hulu. It's really an eye-opener, and thus, your point is null, and we are evolutionary sound as an adapted creature. Our intelligence just makes us stupid. It doesn't stop us from breeding though, so any bad genes will not always be bred out.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

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.

Just because the sequencing didn't show any homology to human DNA does not mean it is alien. After all, we haven't seen the outcome, which might be jibberish. Also, just the fact that you conclude that aliens use DNA as a way to store genetic information, tells me that we must be evolutionary descendant, and thus it makes no sense that there is no homology. Also since he is able to sequence it, which tells me that the aliens for some reason uses similar proteins to replicate their DNA, but with no genetic homology. Hmmm.

I clearly conclude the "supposed" data to be bogus.


Your wrong and should watch the explanation again.

Care to tell us how he is wrong?
edit on 13/11/11 by Thain Esh Kelch because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Nice link. I already replied when bottle posted the exact same thing. Glad to see you're reading his posts even if you aren't reading anyone else's around here. In short, in the process described in the article you linked, all of the child's mtDNA comes from the egg donor. So if the skull in question has human mtDNA then (say it with me) the egg donor was a human.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   

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.


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.

Also, please don't get me started on that silly global flood that never happened. A global flood would leave evidence behind, but there's none.

In short, stop drinking the pseudo-science cool-aid and start doing some proper research



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

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.



this is another one who will ignore the facts laid out on a silver platter. but here goes anyway


you're not paying attention. The skull had a common Earthling as a surrogate mother. The mother's and father's nuclear dna is inside the Earthling's mitochondrial dna. You're talking about a basic implanting of a viable egg into the uterus of a surrogate. Read up on mitochondrial disease.

Bits of the nuclear dna have been recovered from the skull so far and by extrapolating the differences with humans at this point makes the skull more different from us than apes. They had less genome data from Neanderthals at this point when it was determined to be a completely different species from human.

ps you are completely wrong about the hydrocephalus thing. Does that disease cause fibers to grow inside the bone matrix? Does it turn the chemical makeup of the bone into something more like dentin and cause it to grow symmetrically shaped and symmetrically thin compared to a human suffering from it? Does it remove the inion, brow ridge, shallow eye sockets (too shallow to fit a round human eye), no sinus (come on where'd the sinus go?), low ear canals, completely rearrange the muscles attachment points (I'm sure iterationzero would know what they're called), and the way the head sits on the spine? There are still more things like the worn adult teeth (the position of the brain would've killed a human so it wouldn't live long enough to wear down its teeth) but I think just this initial evidence is demonstrable enough for you to at least come up with a better theory than what you have so far.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





IF THE SKULL HAS THREE PARENTS THAT MEANS THERE WAS GENETIC TAMPERING GOING ON 900 YEARS AGO


But the DNA tests show the DNA to be 100% human



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Let's look at the facts, shall we?





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.


FACTS

Here's why Pye is a crook

Please stop dumbing down people!



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


who cares what itsthetooth is describing?

You should, given that you posted that link to ABC in his defense.


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.

Once again, you can't get the facts correct but, somehow, your story is magically correct anyway. Laughable.


IF THE SKULL HAS THREE PARENTS THAT MEANS THERE WAS GENETIC TAMPERING GOING ON 900 YEARS AGO

Has evidence been presented that the skull has three parents? Nope.


the mechanism obviously was by someone who needed to pass on chosen genes for some reason.

Can you provide evidence that this skull has three parents?


The father is alien and the mother was alien.

If the father was alien and the mother was alien, then the skull wouldn't have human mtDNA.


The surrogate mother was one of our common haplotypes.

Except there's no genetic material passed on to the child in the case of a gestational surrogate. Ergo, the skull's mother was human.


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.

Get around what, exactly? That the facts conflict with your version of events? You're right, it's really hard to get around it when you not only have no objective evidence for your version of what happened but the objective evidence we do have directly contradicts your version of what happened. Amazing how that works.


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.

Yes, I'm going to use words. This is a discussion forum after all. I'm not the one guilty of ignoring or deflecting here, Mr. "Non-Linear Problem Solving Out of the Box Thinker". That's your retreat every time someone points out that the facts either don't line up with or directly contradict your version of events. "You have to look past the facts!" Look past the facts to what exactly? The inherent "truthiness" of your version of events? The gut feeling that you have that you must be right, in spite of all the evidence?


It's simple and typical of people who either won't or can't go there.

Been there, done that, probably gonna do it again tomorrow. I have objective evidence and a scientific theory that's been vetted for the last 150 years, in spite of attacks from all varieties of creationists, whether the call their creator God or an alien. And you've got... a warm and fuzzy feeling when you read the works of Sitchin. Enjoy that warm and fuzzy feeling. I hope it brings you solace as we continue to make predictions that come true based on our understanding of evolution, in spite of apparently being unable to think outside the box and say that aliens did it all.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

the mtdna not the nuclear dna



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

The original testing done showed that both the mtDNA and nuDNA were human. But Pye didn't like those results, so he keeps submitting samples, hoping that someone will finally tell him what he wants to hear. Here's a quote from the man himself:


"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."

Or, in other words, "I'm gonna find someone that'll give me the answer I'm looking for before they've even analyzed anything, and then pay them money I got by begging for donations from the gullible to give me that answer."




top topics



 
31
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join