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: 76
31
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZAnd just to be perfectly clear, if male alien sperm fertilizes an alien egg, and that egg is then implaned in a human surrogate...then THERE WON'T BE ANY HUMAN DNA IN THE BABY!!! You are talking out of your ass and clearly don't know anything about medicine and biology...which isn't surprising if you get your "information" from pseudo-scientists like Pye


actually you are talking out your ass and flying by the seat of your pants

www.wired.com...


Those are 3 human components...so they can work together. Doing it with an alien would be like trying to mix male/female parts of a rose with a human. Ridiculous




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Varemia
 

with mitochondrial disease they remove the mother's mtdna and use the surrogate's mtdna so the child essentially has three parents. The surrogate egg is just carrying the nuclear dna of the actual parents and the child will look like the parents but have the mitochondrial dna of the surrogate.


This is true. However, if you read the site which discusses the findings:

www.starchildproject.com...

You will find that one of their DNA analysis cropped up a partial Chromosome 1 within the DNA. This is human, and is expected if there was a human mother.

From what I'm reading on the findings, this creature is half human or had a severe DNA disease. I'm not sure which is more likely, but according to the website, they ran the DNA through a library of DNA covering millions of species across the planet, and found no similarities in the chain they tested.

Keep in mind that the entire DNA has not been sequenced, so they have only compared parts of it. Still, the non-similarity to any known organism is interesting.

In my opinion it is either a DNA disease or an alien.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Which explains why Hydrocephalus is the most logical explanation given that it's mosltly caused by gene defects.

But hey, let's not listen to one of the top Neuro-specialists at one of the top universities in the country, and instead claim it was aliens, a hypothesis we have zero proof for



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





When a child is born premature and spends months in an incubator its mtDNA does not contain machine language.

A sarogot acts as the incubator and adds nothing to the child being carried.
Depends on weather or not the chromosomes were scraped out of the sarrogate.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Those are 3 human components...so they can work together. Doing it with an alien would be like trying to mix male/female parts of a rose with a human. Ridiculous
Well your talking about mixing nuclear DNA. I'm talking about altering mtDNA which sets outside the cydoplasim. Pye explains this very well I'm shocked so many people miss it, unless you just haven't watched the video.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





From what I'm reading on the findings, this creature is half human or had a severe DNA disease. I'm not sure which is more likely, but according to the website, they ran the DNA through a library of DNA covering millions of species across the planet, and found no similarities in the chain they tested.
Nope, its not human at all. Those few parts found human were mtDNA and overlap. This skull looks healthy from what they can tell which is also why they were able to rule out hrydocephulious.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Those are 3 human components...so they can work together. Doing it with an alien would be like trying to mix male/female parts of a rose with a human. Ridiculous
Well your talking about mixing nuclear DNA. I'm talking about altering mtDNA which sets outside the cydoplasim. Pye explains this very well I'm shocked so many people miss it, unless you just haven't watched the video.


It doesn't matter because it still wouldnt' be compatible


Just like you can't cross a duck with a bear or use one as a surrogate. It's biologically impossible, and not even a question of technology. It would be like trying to open an Excel file with a calculator from the 60s



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZAnd just to be perfectly clear, if male alien sperm fertilizes an alien egg, and that egg is then implaned in a human surrogate...then THERE WON'T BE ANY HUMAN DNA IN THE BABY!!! You are talking out of your ass and clearly don't know anything about medicine and biology...which isn't surprising if you get your "information" from pseudo-scientists like Pye


actually you are talking out your ass and flying by the seat of your pants

www.wired.com...


Those are 3 human components...so they can work together. Doing it with an alien would be like trying to mix male/female parts of a rose with a human. Ridiculous


where's your demonstrable evidence to support your brain fart?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Varemia
 


Which explains why Hydrocephalus is the most logical explanation given that it's mosltly caused by gene defects.

But hey, let's not listen to one of the top Neuro-specialists at one of the top universities in the country, and instead claim it was aliens, a hypothesis we have zero proof for


none of that is even close to this skull. where does hydrocephally change the entire chemical make up of the bone and the other specific anomalies? your flailing is quite amusing



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Keep in mind that the entire DNA has not been sequenced, so they have only compared parts of it. Still, the non-similarity to any known organism is interesting.

In my opinion it is either a DNA disease or an alien.


they concluded Neanderthal was a separate species from us with only 2% of the genome mapped. If you extrapolate the genomic differences so far it should be beyond the differences we have with primates. When you add all the rest of the evidence- morphology, chemical make up, structure of the bone matrix, physiology and not much dna matching human or anything in the database- it's a foregone conclusion.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Varemia
 


Which explains why Hydrocephalus is the most logical explanation given that it's mosltly caused by gene defects.

But hey, let's not listen to one of the top Neuro-specialists at one of the top universities in the country, and instead claim it was aliens, a hypothesis we have zero proof for


none of that is even close to this skull. where does hydrocephally change the entire chemical make up of the bone and the other specific anomalies? your flailing is quite amusing


It's a gene defect, and changing bone composition is exactly what happens when you have this defect


And you can't say I'm failing when it's you who hasn't presented a shred of objective evidence



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZAnd just to be perfectly clear, if male alien sperm fertilizes an alien egg, and that egg is then implaned in a human surrogate...then THERE WON'T BE ANY HUMAN DNA IN THE BABY!!! You are talking out of your ass and clearly don't know anything about medicine and biology...which isn't surprising if you get your "information" from pseudo-scientists like Pye


actually you are talking out your ass and flying by the seat of your pants

www.wired.com...


Those are 3 human components...so they can work together. Doing it with an alien would be like trying to mix male/female parts of a rose with a human. Ridiculous


where's your demonstrable evidence to support your brain fart?


Talk to any DNA specialist and ask him if he can cross a tulip with a human


Also, please take a picture of his face when you ask him...we all wanna laugh with him



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Varemia
Keep in mind that the entire DNA has not been sequenced, so they have only compared parts of it. Still, the non-similarity to any known organism is interesting.

In my opinion it is either a DNA disease or an alien.


they concluded Neanderthal was a separate species from us with only 2% of the genome mapped. If you extrapolate the genomic differences so far it should be beyond the differences we have with primates. When you add all the rest of the evidence- morphology, chemical make up, structure of the bone matrix, physiology and not much dna matching human or anything in the database- it's a foregone conclusion.


I don't believe that Neanderthalensis was a different species. The category of species is determined by whether or not two creatures can mate and produce fertile offspring. Since the generally accepted idea is that humans bred with Neanderthals, that means that they were the same species as us. Honestly, speciation among fossils can be a crap shoot. Without being able to breed the organisms, it is simply based on differences.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
To those of you saying that Hydrocephalus is impossible, here are a few links that might change your mind:

Images (Warning, some are graphic)

forgetomori.com...

Now, doesn't this look just like the star child? We also know they found parts of a chromosome, and previous studies showed that the skull belonged to a boy, because an X and Y chromosome were found. This means that the father had to be human, because only the father can contribute a Y chromosome.

You guys are just trying to distract from the topic of explaining diversity without evolution, or explaining why evolution is wrong.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Sure it sounds funny, but what do you think surrogacy is?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Maybe this is where evolution steps in LOL.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Sure it sounds funny, but what do you think surrogacy is?


It only works with related (sometimes even only the same) species. For example, a croc can't be a surrogate for an aligator.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Surrogacy is an arrangement in which a woman carries and delivers a child for another couple or person. This woman may be the child's genetic mother (called traditional surrogacy), or she may carry the pregnancy to delivery after having an embryo, to which she has no genetic relationship whatsoever,

en.wikipedia.org...

When someone has mitochondrial disease they can swap mtDNA in a surrogacy, in addition, the star child has mtDNA that DOES NOT match its own maternal nuclear DNA.

Now the only way this could happen is if they can be seperated at some point.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





From what I'm reading on the findings, this creature is half human or had a severe DNA disease. I'm not sure which is more likely, but according to the website, they ran the DNA through a library of DNA covering millions of species across the planet, and found no similarities in the chain they tested.
Nope, its not human at all. Those few parts found human were mtDNA and overlap. This skull looks healthy from what they can tell which is also why they were able to rule out hrydocephulious.


I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but Pye isn't an authority or has any credibility. He doesn't publish his studies, and won't even allow peer reviews. The only public studies that were done, those people could check up on, were studies that confirmed the skull as 100% human, and a clear case of congenital hydrocephalus.

So as long as you don't find a credible source (one that has been checked and verified by numerous sources), no objective person could possibly take your claims (or Pye's claims) seriously. The only 2 sources that do that both state it's a 100% human skull with a gene defect known as hydrocephalus. So either post credible evidence, or please stop trying to sell your snake-oil to people



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Ok, lets not look at pye.

The analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been a useful forensic technique since it was first admitted as evidence in a US court in Tennessee v. Wade in 1996. Unlike nuclear DNA, the DNA used for DNA fingerprinting, mtDNA does not match a crime scene sample to a particular individual. That is, it can’t point the finger directly at one person. What it reveals is the maternal lineage of the individual or crime scene sample in question. Often this is all that is necessary to prove that a particular individual was at the crime scene, but it is not the “smoking gun” that nuclear DNA is.

But now some new evidence casts a different light on this test. Before addressing that, let’s look at an excerpt from my book Howdunnit: Forensics so we can understand exactly what mitochondrial DNA is.

writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com...

How could mtdna only represent the mother when it is unable to identify her?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join