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.

 

Alien Ancestors: Yeigh or Neigh?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Actually it's worse that claptrap. Claptrap is somewhat benign. This ridiculous and unfounded idea about ancient aliens is actually harmful to the future well-being of the idiots that espouse it, assuming they believe it and aren't just in it for the money like VonDaniken and Tsoukalos, Hancock, Sitchen, Cremo, Pye, Childress, et al.

It's harmful to you in that it damages your ability to think critically and trains your mind to be lazy.


So you came to this thread just to insult people, instead of giving your own explanation?
Jeez that must be hard mental work.
I said the intervention theory is a possibility, and never attacked any other position.

I suppose being closed minded to the point of bigotry has really done so much for humanity.

Anyway, I won't debate with you further, because it will lead me to commit T&C violations, and further ruin the tone of what is otherwise a pleasant debate.

edit on 13-10-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
Kindly tell me where I fit in. Rh-neg AB. No Rhesus dna in me.



Oh what the hell, lets do some genetics.


Experiments with the rhesus monkey, Macaca mulatta, is where the "Rh" blood type was named after, so lets start there.
Where do we find some rhesus monkey DNA? Well, heres a random place with some relevent info - if you look at THIS PDF, you'll see its about the evolution of Rh blood group genes.

Lets not bother reading the whole paper, but if you have a look at the "table 1" on page 2, you'll see the lists of genes referred to in that paper.
The last one is Rhesus macaque (S70343)

The number at the end, S70343, is an indexing number used for genes, so you dont have to go to the tiresome trouble of typing all those long DNA sequences into a search engine. Just tell the search engine to examine "S70343".

So lets do that HERE at the BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) engine.

1. Click on "nucleotide blast" from the list of BLAST programs to run.
when that page loads,
2. Where it says Enter accession number(s), gi(s), or FASTA sequence(s), type in S70343
3. Click on the BLAST icon further down.
4. Wait. It will spend a minute or so looking for any similarities in the database to the Rhesus monkey sequence we told it to start with.

This is what I got...


The first result, at the top, labelled NM_020485.4 shows a good match to a human Rh blood type gene. Over to the right you'll see it says 90 percent.

Further down the page you can see exactly what it matched against and what the differences were...


The "query" is the rhesus monkey,
The "subject" is the human.
Hey, its 90 percent the same!

A few differences here or there, but of course thats what evolution is. You might find T changed to C or a G where a T was... or whatever other things.
Note that there is no section with alien DNA codes inserted. Human and rhesus monkey DNA is the same, just with a few minor changes here and there.

So when you say "No Rhesus dna in me", its not quite true. Actually, there's quite a lot of it.

edit on 14-10-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
And further to that posting above this, on the BLAST search page where you entered the S70343 number, we can change some defaults further down to see more results.

Choose Search Set
The default setting was to just search "Human Genomic + transcript", but if we select "Others" and then "nucleotide collection (nr/nt)" from the dropdown box, then we will get a wider range of results.

I find that my rhesus monkey dna sample is...
* 100 percent the same as a Macaca mulatta sequence.
Not surprising since Macaca mulatta is the rhesus monkey.
* 98 percent match to Macaca fascicularis.
Not surprising since thats another type of related monkey.
* 97 percent match to Papio hamadryas, a baboon
* 92 percent match to Pongo abelii, the Sumatran orangutan.
...
and so forth. The more distantly related, the more differences there are in the similarity.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Maybe those that don't agree with me should state whether they believe in evolution or a higher being (God) or any other theories. I just wanted some discussion!
Good morning to all, by the way. It's 6:40 am in PA



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 

I don't know whether the though has crossed your mind but there seems to be a lot of potential for having a dispelling the myths about DNA and aliens thread. In the interests of denying ignorance.

I think ATSers often focus on the idea of physical intervention while forgetting the rest. If there has been contact in humanities past the impact would have potentially been an evolution of consciousness. More on this later...



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Well researched reply...I give you Kudos for that. But, 90% is not 100%. It's like you accept as fact, that I can be "kinda pregnant" no?

So I don't accept your premise that RH-neg is just another variant of Rhesus factor. Close, but no cigar.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by imawlinn
I believe it is possible that human beings are the result of alien intervention. We are probably apes with a little alien dna mixed. I think we were planted here, so to speak, and that we will be harvested someday.y


I'm starting to think it is something like that.

Look, there is evolution for sure, animals evolve, we evolve physiologically, it is a fact. But just that? Why do people believe in centuries old theory? Yes there is evolution but Darwin excludes some other possibilities:

Epigenetics or how mutation and errors or viruses can cause alteration, thus the difference between humans and apes. Some people still believe there has been absolutely a series of walking persons, one walking on feet and hands, next on 20 degrees towarsds the vertical axis erected, next picture 40 degrees erected, next 60 degrees erected etc etc until 90 degrees i,e we are Standing? Do you seriously believe some CENTURIES OLD explanation?

There has been discovries of what is considered to be early forms of human life, some astralopithecus, then there is a gap, and this gap is filled with a semi-ape semi-human skeleton... this is as much speculaton as any theory here.

So epigenetics is a scientific explanation of how Darwin's theory isn't to 100% although there is lots of truth in it.

But where epigenetics fails imho is how, can you get so perfect human just from DNA errors? Wouldnt't mutation, not to say radiation (radiation frm space objects that still hasn't decayed) cause anomalies, not perfect our bodies?

Also why would someone write so much text as the Bible, why would ancient writings be done about some ancient Gods or people who went down to Earth?

Why do we have black skinned people, asians, all racial features? How did the first races appear? It's clear not everyone was one skinned right??

Why would one waste so much text to describe something false, as it is in all ancient writings? Why do you think everyone was doing Literary texts? Don't you know that people in the past were mostly retelling real events in that way?

Did science address these? No it didn't because it's easier to give some explanation and not bother with the details!



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 
Surely the point is that the human Rhesus negative gene is just a variant of the same gene and codes for the same protein. You cannot claim that small variations in gene sequence are evidence of ET intervention because then you have to claim that all variations in sequence, in ALL SPECIES are a result of ET intervention.

If you take a step back lets take a look at species we know have had their genome interfered with. Several GM crop types could be examples (human intervention). Do we find evidence of the same type of intervention in humans? If you find that then we have something very interesting to discuss.

ETA: The bioinformatics approach is a good line to take and could be revealing here.
edit on 14/10/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/10/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
Well researched reply...I give you Kudos for that. But, 90% is not 100%. It's like you accept as fact, that I can be "kinda pregnant" no?
So I don't accept your premise that RH-neg is just another variant of Rhesus factor. Close, but no cigar.



You know, I could do the same analysis comparing human DNA with human DNA and get similar results. Different humans have different DNA. Thats what makes the differences in hair color, skin color, blood types, height.. and everything else you can think of.
It would be exactly the same kind of differences in the DNA - simples substitutions of base pairs with different ones.

What would be your reaction to that?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SavedOne

Yes! We tend to overthink everything because of our technology. If we need to move something we try to figure out where to rent the crane, how to size it, how to get it to the site, how to rig it, etc. It never even crosses our minds that we could probably just get 30 big guys to pick it up and move it in a fraction of the time
It's a shame our ancestors didn't document their construction techniques, I imagine if we knew how they did things we'd be impressed by the elegant simplicity of it all.


30 guys wouldn't be quite enough to carry blocks of stone more than 400 tons, sometimes 800 tons, in many of the ancient monuments. Some example of such huge rocks all over the world: www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   


Neigh for me. Not enough evidence to support it in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Neigh, only because we have no solid evidence.

However, a part of me wouldn't mind saying Yeigh, simply because we should never think anything is impossible. And it would answer a lot of questions we've had since... I don't know, the beginning of human DNA. LOL

The smartest minds once thought the sun revolved around Earth, if anything is consistent with human nature, it would be history repeating itself (Meaning us making mistakes, scientifically and spiritually.)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Rh negative blood

says it all



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Harte
 


Actually it's worse that claptrap. Claptrap is somewhat benign. This ridiculous and unfounded idea about ancient aliens is actually harmful to the future well-being of the idiots that espouse it, assuming they believe it and aren't just in it for the money like VonDaniken and Tsoukalos, Hancock, Sitchen, Cremo, Pye, Childress, et al.

It's harmful to you in that it damages your ability to think critically and trains your mind to be lazy.


So you came to this thread just to insult people, instead of giving your own explanation?

You've been here 2 years.

Do you think that since 2005 I have not done this, repeatedly?

Exactly when is it okay for myself and others to stop posting the same factual materials over and over in response to fakirs and con men like EVD?

Do you know how to work the search function here? While I'll admit it's not that good, I bet you can turn up a couple of hundred posts of mine, and thousands of others, that provide every explanation you seek.

In the end, if you think it's worthwhile to look, you'll see it's complete hogwash.

Harte



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Vandettas
I have to disagree. It leads us (with our current knowledge) to GUESS that we EVOLVED from certain order of PRIMATES. As for your last line, all of our DNA is a mystery. We don't know where it came from.

I know exactly where my DNA came from. And I know where their DNA came from, too.


Really? Well please tell us your methods of tracing back the creation of your own DNA over billions of years.

edit on 17-10-2011 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 

I didn't say I knew where all my ancestors' DNA for the last three billion years came from. I know where mine came from.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join