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: 70
31
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

the mtdna not the nuclear dna


All human


Only that wanna-be scientist who's really nothing but a science fiction author and his gullible followers believe otherwise...completely ignoring the facts debunking their claims




posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


you and iteration just keep repeating yourselves like a broken record. that's what you get with linear thinking. You both fail to realize the actual physical evidence for the skull corroborates what the dna is telling us.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


you keep posting that old data. the technology has evolved since then. get up to date on things. this argument that you keep repeating is wrong. Novella will not revise the copy. He and people like him are actually impeding science.
edit on 13-11-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


you and iteration just keep repeating yourselves like a broken record. that's what you get with linear thinking. You both fail to realize the actual physical evidence for the skull corroborates what the dna is telling us.


I thought that the DNA told us that the "star child" had human parents? What about it is misleading, and how does one even identify alien DNA?



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


you and iteration just keep repeating yourselves like a broken record. that's what you get with linear thinking. You both fail to realize the actual physical evidence for the skull corroborates what the dna is telling us.


Of course we keep on repeating it if you continuously ignore the facts


The evidence says the skull is 100% human, and you've repeatedly failed at presenting objective evidence proving otherwise.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well than you might want to watch it again then watch the interview about the trouble he went through in getting the skull tested and WHY he didn't trust the first test. It's not because he wants it to be alien its because they werent (after the fact) able to test for unknown DNA. The skull is NOT human. The skull has alien mother, and alien father and human mtDNA.

You guys are confusing human mtDNA with being the ONLY mother involved in the making. There were three involved to make this skull. An alien mother and father, and a human for the serrogate. Itero was trying to tell me that because it has human mtDNA its all human. If that was true there would be no signficance of a zygote.

This skull not only proved alien DNA in the final test but also proved that it was about 50% matching DNA where primates have about 97%. Rats have a 70% match to our DNA. So there is no question that this thing is NOT human. Of course as I keep mentioning in all of my posts we are only ever able to tell you what its not, not exactly what it is.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Alright. Well we can agree to disagree. This still has nothing to do with evolution. How do you explain the diversity of life on Earth without evolution? That is the point of the thread. What mechanism allows creatures to be different all over the world, if not evolution?

I personally think that the idea that aliens intervened with every single creature is just ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Simple, our mtDNA shows us to be 200,000 years old while we supposedly evolved from primates over 6 million years ago.

It's simply not possible because DNA is the math of biology.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


Simple, our mtDNA shows us to be 200,000 years old while we supposedly evolved from primates over 6 million years ago.

It's simply not possible because DNA is the math of biology.


How does the mtDNA say that we're 200,000 years old? Any sources? Because I've seen the fossils, and they disagree with your notion.

Now, we've been anatomically modern for 100-200,000 years, but we've been evolving for much longer.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


www.sciencedaily.com...

I also have a hard copy that I printed from the library a few months ago from the Assam tribune.

Just like newsweek published an article called mitocondrial eve.

Anyhow, all sources are saying we are 200,000 years old, which automatically debunked evolution as well as religious followers.

I wish I could link you to the assam tribune but I think you have to have a librarian account.
it was publishes on dec 12 2010 and the name of the site is called ProQuest.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Actually, it's based on evolution and says specifically that the genes for "modern humanity" acquired their mutation 200,000 years ago.

Your assumption that 200,000 years was the date of our beginning is ignorant and naive.
edit on 13-11-2011 by Varemia because: typo



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well than the link was perfect for you.
The assam tribune specifically rules out evolution as well as god making us 10,000 years ago.
I think newsweek did as well. Did you also notice in this example they are referring to the evolution scale depending on the model of evolution? So its just a theory and they haven't seen this theory in the works.

The newsweek article also makes an attempt in the evolution direction as well. Basically they are claiming back in 1988 that they should be able to confirm that we have in fact evolved. It's 2011 now so its not looking so good. They have had 23 years to confirm this, what do you think is going on? They can't confirm something that isn't possible.

DNA does not just change on its own, and what little bit they have noticed that did, died out fast. So genetic drift is a joke. Speciation will also die out. It only makes sense they are also saying that in isolated cases of it happeneing the species surly never changed into another species. This last part was from a different site about evolution.
edit on 13-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Anyhow, all sources are saying we are 200,000 years old, which automatically debunked evolution as well as religious followers.

You making this claim is a clear sign that you don't really understand what is meant when scientists say "we are 200,000 years old" based on our mtDNA. It doesn't mean that we suddenly appeared on this planet 200ky ago, fully formed and distinct from every other species on this planet. It means that's when our most recent common matrilineal ancestor lived. We can trace our lineage back, both genetically and morphologically, over millions of years -- not just 200k. The last 2My just covers how long our genus has been around and we can trace back to where our genus diverged from other species in the genus Australopithecus. And we can trace back farther than that.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Your making an assumption our lineage goes back further, please show me a link of sorts that says so.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

You've been provided this information repeatedly in this thread and others. Go back and look it up for yourself.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Your making an assumption our lineage goes back further, please show me a link of sorts that says so.


We know that both homo sapiens and neanderthals (which passed on some genes to homo sapiens too) had a common ancestor, homo heidelbergenesis. So the entire "humans just popped up without evolution" statement is complete and utter nonsense



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


You have never provided anything that proves us going back further than 200,000 years.

I think your once again confusing overlap with evolution. We are not related to primates and the only reason why there are similaritys is because of overlap.
edit on 13-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well your assuming that evolution has to be present to exist and your forgetting about the possibility of intervention.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well your assuming that evolution has to be present to exist and your forgetting about the possibility of intervention.


Why does there need to be intervention when we have evidence that we slowly became what we are today?

What is misleading about these skulls?
www.theistic-evolution.com...



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Oh I have no doubt we mixed with other species, just like it says in the bible. Which turned out to be a sin and we were somehow punished for it.

It might sound complicated but if we were engineered like sitchen thinks, it could explain how this mixing of breeds was even possible. It's also possible that certain humanoid species are able to procriate without any special medical intervention.

As a small clue, I have been able to figure out that one of the things thats rampant in the bible is telepathy.
I was able to figure this out based on deductive reasoning of specific events that took place through out the bible. In Isiah 6 they even speak of removing one of our powers as a form of control.

In my over 30 years looking into the supernatural and paranormal I always thought it was odd how aliens are almost always reported to have telepathy, and we don't. What made this so odd is that so many different types of aliens always seemed to have it. It would appear that we too are suppose to have it, but it was removed as a form of punishemnt. It proves commonality of life but more importantly that who ever,, what ever and however we were made, its clear we were suppose to be able to communicate with one another, and I don't mean by speaking wtih out mouth.

That was an adaptation as a result of losing our telepathy. Telepathy has a limitation in range, and is universial, meaning we would be able to speak to any other species that also has it without language barriers. It would be much more robust and quicker, and possibly also have images.

One of the main reasons I was able to figure this out was I asked a leagalist christian that refuses to believe in aliens, if she was sitting down one day and minding her own business and started to hear voices, where would she think they are coming from? At first she said it could be that she is having a nervous breakdown or going crazy but not everyone in the bible could be crazy so what her second quess was either a spirit or a ghost.

What a coincidence, two very common words used in the bible to identify communications. The reason it was documented this way was because they had no other way to explain what was happening to them. The breaking point that confirmed this was moses needing the arc of the covinent to talk to god. It was a contradiction because god can supposedly hear our thoughts and prayers. Well he could, its just that there was a limitation of range, so he can't all the time, and the bible gave a good clue that he passed on long ago to boot. This was a turning point in religion because it created confustion and what I call imaginary friends when people totally missed the point.

The point is we are higher level sentient beings where most animals aren't. We are in a catagory more with aliens than we are with primates. In addition, this brain matter that I recently brought up which probably allows telepathy is not present in primates, thats another clue about our relationship, or the lack of.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join