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: 77
31
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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?


You aren't posting anything proving Pye's "research". We're not talking about theory here. You have to present proof that any of Pye's statements are correct in the first place. And that includes all his statements about mtDNA. Sadly you can't, because Pye isn't sharing any of his raw data, and won't let people peer review his results. Until he does, talking about his "findings" is a giant waste of time




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You know it's looking like it could be genesists information that Pye was only privy to because of his dealings with labs. I feel confident enough to trust his explanation on how mtDNA is present in an alien skull. There were matching parts of the skull and those where the mtDNA. The rest of it didn't match.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Probably the best example is in wikipedia...

In sexual reproduction, mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother.

en.wikipedia.org...

So the keyword here is "sexual." Making babys in a dish are not a event of sex.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

are a horse and donkey the same species?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

it's not that he won't it's more like nobody wants to touch it.

and p.s.
you are 100% wrong about the Hydrocephalus issue. completely wrong.

edit on 17-11-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Varemia
 

are a horse and donkey the same species?


There are some lonely little chimpettes in the wild that would probably LOVE to have the companionship of some of these eligible bachelors who completely buy into this whole evolution thing. I really think it's kinda heartless that they don't give them a shot.
I mean sure, the IQ is low and the language barrier thing but I think chips are pretty good at signaling... I think if he was intuitive enough he could read whether or not she was consenting, which is the important thing... and apparently they like the really dumb ones anyway, right? Much easier to talk into a date and probably won't mind or even notice a little obstinance or degradation on his part, which his narrow scope might incline him to.

Here's a real cute girl right here.




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You know it's looking like it could be genesists information that Pye was only privy to because of his dealings with labs. I feel confident enough to trust his explanation on how mtDNA is present in an alien skull. There were matching parts of the skull and those where the mtDNA. The rest of it didn't match.


Doesn't change the fact that as long as he doesn't publish his official study including the raw data, and until he allows peer reviews (which are one of the most important functions in true science), his claims are worthless. Especially given that all peer reviewed studies claim the EXACT OPPOSITE of him. You keep on claiming hydrocephalus is wrong...but your opinion is based on an AUTHOR who states the exact opposite of one of the top neurologists on the planet!! Who are you going to trust, and author, or a real specialist


They're also worthless because they oppose proven facts


The problem is, facts and objective evidence back up science...whereas religion has ZERO objective evidence.

Fossil record fully backs up the theory

What missing link???

UC Berkeley also found out what nonsense the "missing link" is.

And more proof...

Using the missing link argument is beyond nonsense.

And even more proof...

So now that you have scientific proof that your "missing link argument" is simply nonsense, and that the theory is fully backed up by the fossil record...let's move on...

DNA and genetics confirm the theory too.

Yup, you read correctly…DNA and genetics confirm the theory.

And anotherone...

We are actively using the theory in modern medicine…and it works accurately!!

Cliff notes: The entire "missing link" argument is nonsense, and DNA/genetics, migratory trends, as well as the practical application of the theory in modern medicine fully support the theory.

On a side note, creationism has ZERO logic behind it if you assume the universe was made just for us...at best, it's a MASSIVE failure




edit on 17-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I didn't have time to check out the links, I can went I get back from work. Part of the video I watched made me laugh. If we were on such a collision course with death how come our population is growing so much?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I didn't have time to check out the links, I can went I get back from work. Part of the video I watched made me laugh. If we were on such a collision course with death how come our population is growing so much?


Because our birth rate is higher than our death rate. That's how simple it is.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Varemia
 

are a horse and donkey the same species?


No, but they're close enough for the offspring to survive. With some inter-species breeding attempts, the genetic makeup of the embryo and the sperm are simply too different to mix.

Keep in mind that mules cannot mate. Their sexual gametes are broken.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Regarding Pye's claims of "alien" DNA, from what I understand the Starchild had between 800-1,000 mtDNA differences. That's less than that of a chimp, which has roughly 1,500. So, the most you could say, assuming the results hold up if they're for real to begin with, is that the Starchild is not human. You definitely cannot claim it's alien--the Starchild has almost 50% fewer deviations than a chimp.

Saying that the Starchild is alien because it is not human is using the principle of exclusion and a false dilemma.

This is a severely disabled child. Usually, such a child is miscarried but occasionally they can be born alive. (Miscarriage is nature's way of correcting these kinds of mistakes.) They don't usually live very long, however, which could explain why the child was 5 or so at death.

About the "alien" DNA. We don't know what "alien" DNA looks like, so how can he tell one way or the other.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well thats pretty hard to understand considering we only procriate for about 20-25 years, which is about 1/4 of our life.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Regarding Pye's claims of "alien" DNA, from what I understand the Starchild had between 800-1,000 mtDNA differences. That's less than that of a chimp, which has roughly 1,500. So, the most you could say, assuming the results hold up if they're for real to begin with, is that the Starchild is not human. You definitely cannot claim it's alien--the Starchild has almost 50% fewer deviations than a chimp.

Saying that the Starchild is alien because it is not human is using the principle of exclusion and a false dilemma.

This is a severely disabled child. Usually, such a child is miscarried but occasionally they can be born alive. (Miscarriage is nature's way of correcting these kinds of mistakes.) They don't usually live very long, however, which could explain why the child was 5 or so at death.

About the "alien" DNA. We don't know what "alien" DNA looks like, so how can he tell one way or the other.


Your assuming we would have more in common with chimps, which is actually backwards.

There is no false delima here.

Well your welcome to believe its a child just remember it has different bone composite, adult teeth with 5 more adult teeth waiting to come down (which is unheard of) 1/2 " shallow eyesockets. No iniot, A larger brain, about 1/3 more brain, No sinuses, Smaller chewing radius. Bone compsite that would not allow cutting to that of a human bone, and didn't smell like normal human bone when cut. Would not disolve in the standard acid for DNA testing, special acid had to be used. Weird fibers imbeded all thorugh out the bone. Axis of the spinal angel is way off too.

If you think this was a child, there is no way. How could it have adult teeth? With more waiting to come down? How can you dissmiss all of the aformentioned?. It would have had to of been a really screwed up kid that had all these side effects and still had no visible symetrical oddities, which is impossible. More importantly it would have to have human nuclear DNA which it doesn't. It has human mtDNA and coherent insignificiant base pairs.

No your correct, they don't have another alien to compare it to, to say which type of alien it is, but they do get coherent base pairs so they know its not an error and those don't match nuclear human DNA. I guess it could always be a dog.

The only thing that having human mtDNA and alien nuclear DNA means, is that this child was made in a LAB. Now hes over 900 years old and we didn't have labs 900 years ago that could do this. So when you evolutionists jump on this and say its a bunch of bull, your still faced with resolving this problem. How was he labbed 900 years ago? Humans didn't have this technology. It proves intervention recently happened and I'm saying it was happening back in biblical times as well.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

the chemical signature of the bone is not human. the morphology and physiology are not human. if it looks, walks and quacks like an alien then it's an alien.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well thats pretty hard to understand considering we only procriate for about 20-25 years, which is about 1/4 of our life.


Still factual though...overall, human birth rate is now higher than the death rate. Largely because of science making discoveries in medicine and agriculture.

Also, you keep on repeating over and over and over again what Pye said, when in reality, his word's beyond useless. It's not as if people don't want to examine his findings, he DOESN'T ALLOW IT ANYMORE!! Why? Because the 2 times he did, experts established that the skull is 100% human with a genetic disease called hydrocephalus...and that goes against his claims, and makes it pretty hard to sell books


So as long as that snake-oil salesman doesn't let others peer review his findings, everything you repost from his website and books is FICTION


And I doubt people wanna waste their time discussing some new-age Harry Potter novel

edit on 17-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

the chemical signature of the bone is not human. the morphology and physiology are not human. if it looks, walks and quacks like an alien then it's an alien.


The only person claiming that is that fiction author Pye. Every single independent study by experts show the skull to be 100% human with a genetic disease


In short, it's nonsense until he allows peer reviews...



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well I don't think its that, I think he gets inside information on certain things about genetics because he has blown the quarter of a million dollars on lab tests.

I don't think its far fetched at all that he has learned something after blowing that kind of money.

And lab 424 publishes the final results.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I don't think peer reviews alone is what determins what the skull is or isn't.

Oh and his wikipedia page clearly shows his as a NON fiction writer.
edit on 17-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I don't think peer reviews alone is what determins what the skull is or isn't.

Oh and his wikipedia page clearly shows his as a NON fiction writer.
edit on 17-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


Oh really?





Lloyd Anthony Pye (born 1946)[1] is an American author...





In the late 1990s, Pye obtained a curiously shaped skull from a couple in El Paso, Texas that he believes is an alien-human hybrid and proof that humans are descended from extra-terrestrial beings he calls "terraformers".[7] DNA tests show that the skull is from a human male and Steven Novella believes he suffered from hydrocephalus.[8][9]


So if official studies clearly show his claims are ridiculous and not based on facts...it would be nuts to claim he's not a fiction author. Wiki calls him an author (which he is...NOT a scientist), and then presents clear evidence that his claims are pseudo-scientific nonsense.


Here's a detailed analysis of his nonsense claims: LINK

And more...




What about their confident prediction that DNA testing will prove the child was alien? Well, a DNA sample was taken from the skull, and was subjected to DNA probes designed to detect sequences of DNA that are unique to humans (performed by Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia)5. The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is 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.




There are gaping logical problems with their hypothesis. First, Amerindian female mtDNA might be “compatible” with an alien-human hybrid, but it is also compatible with every normal Amerindian human in existence. Further, if the Starchild’s mother was an Amerindian female, as the mtDNA shows (and therefore possessed two X chromosomes), and the father of an alleged hybrid would therefore have to be alien, then were did the human Y (male) chromosome come from? Also, as Carl Sagan once pointed out, alien genetic instructions – the product of a completely different evolutionary past, would be incompatible with human DNA. We would have more luck breeding a human with a petunia than an alien.


LINK

By the way, he's been promising hard proof since 1999...we're still waiting


edit on 17-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I personally as a Christian and creationist do not believe evolution is wrong. Its not evolution or in a sense adaptation that I disbelieve in...its the scientific belief that life came from nothing. The "theory" which apparently in this day and age means "fact" that Earth was covered in a primordial ocean created by nothing but atoms slamming together and billions of years later.....life as well. I believe that all was made by a creator. Since all was made by a creator, that would include science as well, which in of itself would include evolution. Just because we as humans have finally grown smart enough to discover that science does not mean a creator does not exist. Actually, if one were to read the beginning of Genesis...the creation on the earth (not of the earth) one would see that Genesis completely agrees with what science and evolution state. The difference? it was understood and known to be true, before scientist came up with their own little "theory" It tells us that God created the heavens and the earth...never gives a time table or time amount. Then it goes on to tell us about the days of creation ON the earth (not of the earth as many believe) it then goes on to tell us the earth was void and waste and only water covered it....same thing that science states. It then tells us that suddenly there was light. Science tells us that in its early days the earth was covered in a complete greenhouse (very much like venus) and eventually, something happened, and oxygen together with a more stable rotation and distance from the sun made it possible for the greenhouse to begin to clear and sunlight to finally have the ability to shine its light on earth. The bible further agrees with this as the next step takes place...air. The bible tells us that the next step after light was a separation from the waters below and the waters above (ocean and cloud cover) our Earth now begins to have oxygen. After that we have vegetation. Now....many many many mess up right here. They read it as "god created plants" then they believe that plants and trees all of a sudden shot up fully grown. Not so, the bible does not say any such thing. It says specifically let the earth bring forth every tree and shrub that is good for food.......we then get to ocean life, same thing..then to land life...same thing...in each instance the bible states "Let the Earth" in other words.....God was letting a natural process (evolution, science, whatever) take place...he was not interfering with natural selection (he could have, he did not) He let the earth do what it was going to do. The only time we encounter something unique and different is when we get to humans. He specifically states that God created us. He did not allow natural selection for us..he specifically created us. This I do believe...because no matter what evolution can prove....it cannot prove one thing...personality. I am just a body, with natural body functions...what is the answer for my personality? Why did only humans grow to have the ability to create technology, architect, art, music, etc etc etc....why no other animals making it so far up the evolutionary trail? sure..we may have descended from apes, but why are we the only ones?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join