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: 78
31
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Every single independent study by experts show the skull to be 100% human with a genetic disease



really ? there have been independent studies done on it?
did they do a complete genome? You're saying the chemical analysis that Lloyd had done is wrong? Who did the one that demonstrably proves the chemical make up is the same as a human? When did all this happen?

p.s.
which genetic disease does the skull show and how was that found?
edit on 17-11-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nkinga
 


Thanks for your post. This is why I try not to put all those with faith in a box labeled wrong.

I also see no conflict with evolution and creation because evolution does not describe creation. It describes the diverity we see in the fossil records and the diversity we see today.

Obviously I do not agree with your views on human evolution but from your post it is obvious we agree with a lot more than we differ.

Thanks for having a stab at the OP as I am quite bored with reading about a 900 year skull that it appears explains the origins of man?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I know, you just couldn't come to terms if it was in fact an alien.

Do you think the earth is flat?



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Categories: 1946 birthsAmerican novelistsAmerican non-fiction writersAncient astronaut speculationLiving peopleTulane Green Wave football playersAmerican football running backsPeople from Houma, LouisianaPeople from Pensacola, FloridaPseudohistoriansPseudoscientists

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17-11-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





really ? there have been independent studies done on it? did they do a complete genome? You're saying the chemical analysis that Lloyd had done is wrong? Who did the one that demonstrably proves the chemical make up is the same as a human? When did all this happen?

p.s.
which genetic disease does the skull show and how was that found?


MRxyz... there were never any tests done on the skull that prove it to be 100% alien. There were tests that found human mtDNA and NON human nuclear DNA. The only possible way something like this could happen is if this was labbed as an embryo. The first two tests were only primer tests that checked the mtDNA. We aren't arguing the mtDNA to be human, we know it is, we also know that when the nuclear DNA was done, its not human.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





and NON human nuclear DNA


That's simply not true. Only Pye is CLAIMING that, but he hasn't presented any raw data to confirm it, or allowed peer reviews. Because of that, he could be claiming giant purple unicorns roam the universe, and it would be just as valid as this nonsense.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
Thanks for having a stab at the OP as I am quite bored with reading about a 900 year skull that it appears explains the origins of man?



well actually it is a big part of the proof that we don't fit in any niche on this planet and like ancient tablets say, we were created by people from somewhere else.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Only Pye is CLAIMING that, but he hasn't presented any raw data to confirm it, or allowed peer reviews.


he's building his case to take to the public as we speak. Earlier no one would touch the skull although a few would speak off the record which was one thing that motivated him. The lack of any matches so far points in the direction of non-terrestrial parents. The normal skeleton's dna was all there with no anomalies.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   


it was the geneticist who suggested it was a full alien with the mitochondria of a third woman



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Thanks for your post. This is why I try not to put all those with faith in a box labeled wrong.

I also see no conflict with evolution and creation because evolution does not describe creation. It describes the diverity we see in the fossil records and the diversity we see today.

Obviously I do not agree with your views on human evolution but from your post it is obvious we agree with a lot more than we differ.

Thanks for having a stab at the OP as I am quite bored with reading about a 900 year skull that it appears explains the origins of man?
I think the point is that we don't know everything.

And how do you know for sure there is no creator. I find it easier to understand our existance through creation of some type rather than all of us being made from slime.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





That's simply not true. Only Pye is CLAIMING that, but he hasn't presented any raw data to confirm it, or allowed peer reviews. Because of that, he could be claiming giant purple unicorns roam the universe, and it would be just as valid as this nonsense.
How do you know this? Just because the man tries to sell books does not make him a liar. How do you know he is lying, I want to know. Do you have like an inside connection to lie detection.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


As I wrote before. Even if you were correct in your BELIEF that this skull is alien, to which no proof is available to back up your BELIEF as has been pointed out over many pages.

A 900 year old skull would prove nothing in regards to the evolution of mankind. In fact the inept attempt to produce viable life was so bad it resulted in a massive deformity and a child that died young.

You still have not reported what happened to the rest of the skeleton which I suppose despite your heartbreaking story about a death and a suicide is now missing.

We do not fit any particular niche because that is our strength. We use tools to survive and exploit all niches, that is our niche. The evidence shows anything but 'we dont fit', we fit everywhere.

You still have not addressed the OP which is to describe diversity without evolution
edit on 18-11-2011 by colin42 because: Niches



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Only Pye is CLAIMING that, but he hasn't presented any raw data to confirm it, or allowed peer reviews.


he's building his case to take to the public as we speak. Earlier no one would touch the skull although a few would speak off the record which was one thing that motivated him. The lack of any matches so far points in the direction of non-terrestrial parents. The normal skeleton's dna was all there with no anomalies.


So he is going to take it to the public. What about the scientific community? When? how much more money does he require?

Someone must have touched it, there are big holes where samples have been taken and a tooth I believe. What you mean is the results were not what PYE wants

The lack of matches points exactly to that, a lack of evidence and no matter what you have invested in your belief varifiable evidence is what you need to make this a fact.

As expected the normal 'skeleton' had no anomalies, the diseased one has.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy


it was the geneticist who suggested it was a full alien with the mitochondria of a third woman


No. It was Pye saying a geneticist said.

We dont know why they would have replaced the mtDNA, but it is evidence that this was done in a lab says Pye.

You have NO evidence it was done. Full stop.

Crap like he is told the fibres are because it was dropped on a carpet, thats what he is told by science. Again no back up. He acts like science is full of fools.

He needs money yet this unknown scientist (one of the fools) asked for a sample to be sent. That sounds like he did not pay a penny but now he needs money for the GNOME.

He was told by this geneticist. 'You wont believe what I found.' HA HA HA! he would not and has not believed anything that goes against his belief and even with this supposed favourable report, Unmatched DNA does not mean ALIEN.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Thanks for your post. This is why I try not to put all those with faith in a box labeled wrong.

I also see no conflict with evolution and creation because evolution does not describe creation. It describes the diverity we see in the fossil records and the diversity we see today.

Obviously I do not agree with your views on human evolution but from your post it is obvious we agree with a lot more than we differ.

Thanks for having a stab at the OP as I am quite bored with reading about a 900 year skull that it appears explains the origins of man?
I think the point is that we don't know everything.

And how do you know for sure there is no creator. I find it easier to understand our existance through creation of some type rather than all of us being made from slime.


Selective reading appears to be your thing.

I have never said there is no creator. This is a thread on evolution, evolution does not explain creation.

In past posts in this thread I have clearly wrote. If this universe is not infinite (no end and no begining) then clearly creation occured whether that be natural or supernatural.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
decided to check up on the convo at hand. i see colin42 is still beating the # out of the "you cant explain the diversity" horse. yes i can explain it. you just wont accept it. i feel like everything here is pretty much purposeless except us. why is that? why does nothing else matter at all. we can kill off everything if we decided to. we are the main attraction to earth, and in my eyes everything was put here for us. oh wait, thats what the damn book the bible says right? cant be true according to captain nich up here^ who so casually says things like


Unmatched DNA does not mean ALIEN


but in his eyes it still means monkey's.. apparently your one of those foolish science dumbasses that you put down cause you dont realize what you say. i just wanted to check something with the dude who knows it all. so tell me, if we were sharks at one point, like you think. that means u believe the amoeba that started us had to of started under water. right? or dide we start in land then go back into the water? u claim our creation was in a prehistoric time cause of the temperature yada, yada.. why would that matter in the ocean? and why would stuff decide to start coming on land when nothing does that, except for mammals that have never changed into another species? even then, they practically live in the water. explain this.. and did dinosaurs become monkeys? or were they living there with the dinosaurs?



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Hi

Thanks for writing what you feel is the answer now all you need to offer is evidence.

Your assumption everything has no purpose is a crock to begin with. Without creatures like the dung beetle the African plains would be kneck high in crap. So actually the dung beetle performs a more usuful function than us.

Evolution shows we are entangled with all life on this planet and bellieving we can wipe out all other life and still rule the world is utter nonsense.

To answer part 2 of your rant.

An amoeba is quite a complex life form and is not the start.

It's pretty much a universal belief that for life like ours to start water has to be present so yes I would say life began and evolved in water at the begining.

I have made no claims of where life started or temperature yada, yada. not only does evolution have nothing to say about creation This is a thread asking for an explanation of the diversity we see without refering to evolution.

As for the rest of your very polite post. Evidence shows birds are directly related to dinosaurs we are related to a shrew/rat like mammal. So no, dinosaurs never evolved into monkeys and no lifeform turned into anything the word is evolved.

Thanks for a new misunderstanding. 'if we were sharks at one point.' How the hell did you come up with that?

All this info and more is freely available so as you think I am a foolish science dumbass I suggest you read it before you return



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


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


What? Got any evidence for that assertion?


There is no false delima here.


Oh, yes, there is. You're saying that:

1) It's not human.

2) It's definitely an alien.

Those are the two choices you present. The false dilemma is that there's at least one other option--that this is a human child with multiple genetic abnormalities.


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)


This was a 5-6 year old child, correct?

My now-teenage daughter got her first adult tooth when she was 4 and by the time she turned 5 had 4 more of them. Are you going to tell me that that's evidence she's not human?

As I understand it, what they found was several teeth that were jumbled up inside the jaw behind one of the normal, exposed teeth. All that says is that the jaw was too small to accommodate normal tooth growth, resulting in most of the teeth remaining crammed inside the upper jaw. I have personal experience with this and I had to have surgery to remove all 4 wisdom teeth and two back molars. My teeth still aren't straight and braces would not have helped, although they are much straighter than they were when I was a kid.

Are you telling me that a supposedly advanced alien species that could impregnate a human woman and conduct DNA experiments couldn't straighten teeth? Seriously?


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?


Easily.


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.


"Coherent insignificant base pairs"? Are you talking about the 265 base pair sequence that Pye called "100% human"? That means nothing except that it's a normal gene.

The DNA tests done on Starchild tell us nothing but whether these few, specific genes were normal and abnormal. It should not be interpreted as a comprehensive DNA sequencing. It's just a test for certain gene abnormalities.

Now, he mentions a 232 base pair sequence which is another single gene, with "no significant similar found." That proves nothing except that the child had one very defective gene. And he doesn't mention which gene it was, either. But the culprit seems to be GNAS1, which is responsible for production of certain proteins related to bone growth and resorption and mutations can result in a wide range of bone disorders and endocrine disorders.

We have to also take into account where the child lived. The skull was found in a MINE, for crying out loud. The area has a very high Al content to the soil, with other heavy metals as well. Right there, you have plenty of reason to suspect genetic mutation due to environmental factors. GNAS1 gene disorders are caused by a mutation in utero.

That area also has a high radon content.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Only Pye is CLAIMING that, but he hasn't presented any raw data to confirm it, or allowed peer reviews.


he's building his case to take to the public as we speak. Earlier no one would touch the skull although a few would speak off the record which was one thing that motivated him. The lack of any matches so far points in the direction of non-terrestrial parents. The normal skeleton's dna was all there with no anomalies.


This is what happens when we do science through press release. He's going to try to bypass peer review?

No one will take him seriously.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





really ? there have been independent studies done on it? did they do a complete genome? You're saying the chemical analysis that Lloyd had done is wrong? Who did the one that demonstrably proves the chemical make up is the same as a human? When did all this happen?

p.s.
which genetic disease does the skull show and how was that found?


MRxyz... there were never any tests done on the skull that prove it to be 100% alien. There were tests that found human mtDNA and NON human nuclear DNA. The only possible way something like this could happen is if this was labbed as an embryo. The first two tests were only primer tests that checked the mtDNA. We aren't arguing the mtDNA to be human, we know it is, we also know that when the nuclear DNA was done, its not human.


Did the child have a Y chromosome?

If it did, the father was a human male. Period.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join