A Fragment of the Starchild’s FOXP2 Gene is Recovered

page: 10
112
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

sorry two separate replies. the link was for the tenth planet subject and the Uranus thing is what it is. you can't call me out on speculative bs and then do it yourself




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



Yes I can. It is more likely something disrupted Uranus' protoplanetary disk than something with huge gravity passing by and magically only affecting one planet.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 



Yes I can. It is more likely something disrupted Uranus' protoplanetary disk than something with huge gravity passing by and magically only affecting one planet.
answers.yahoo.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


You know, the ability to post links does not equate to answering a question. In fact, in many ways, especially for you, it results in you looking like you have no idea what you are talking about.

A yahoo answer? without sources? No wait. One source....which contradicts what's written in the user's reply....

Are you serious?
edit on 30-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

it's commonly accepted (doesn't mean it is completely true) that a collision with another planet knocked it on it's side. How is that contradicting what I said? You mentioned the physics don't allow it, why not give some details how you've proven that?



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 




I said that something probably hit it while it was forming. What you've been responding with is essentially disagreement, yet links that prove me right. Which begs to question what on Earth point you are trying to make.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

actually you said "protoplanetary disk". My point had to do with the Sumerians knowing things back then that we are just learning now.

how we got to Sumerians I'd have to go back and check.

So what the hell is up with Ron Paul? Isn't it obvious how the media whitewashed over his campaign? I hope he runs as an Independent. If anyone doubts there was media bias at play, they must be more delusional than me thinking we've been interacting with aliens for thousands of years.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Nothing in their writing suggest anything you say.

You are basically looking at carvings and making your own interpretations.

Now please stop going off topic and assuming a thousand things as all it does is make you look ignorant.
edit on 30-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


lol



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Pye tried, so now you are going to tell me who he reached out to and who refused, which is what I asked for earlier and you could supply no such information. So now you can tell me exactly who it was that refused, thanks. And if you understood physics you would understand why the composition of the moon is different.

The website you supplied says the moon has always been dry, it does not at all say what you want it to say.

curator.jsc.nasa.gov...


Recent computer models indicate that the Moon could have been formed from the debris resulting from the Earth being struck a glancing blow by a planetary body about the size of Mars. The chemical composition of the Moon, derived from studies of lunar rocks, is compatible with this theory of the origin of the Moon.


Sorry to burst your bubble, the moon and earth share the same origin.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

answers.yahoo.com...

"The moon was thought to be created by one of four different ways. 1. Broke off from the Earth during fomation (or by collision with something). 2. Earth captured it. 3. During formation they just formed together side by side. 4. Giant impact which is like number 1. "



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


So yahoo answers is the place to go for scientific questions? Who knew? Why are we bothering spending all this money on research when we can simply ask Yahoo? Maybe you should look elsewhere for your answers.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Analysis of lunar rocks provides evidence that the Moon and Earth share the same origin.


This makes the capture theory nearly impossible.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
so is it NOT possible the starchild shares some of our DNA? that it is part homo? its mother, its father, was part homo (or neanderthal) and its other parent was part some thing else.

i understand the author is saying the maternal/mito DNA is NOT of this world, but i'm skeptical about that claim since they say they admit recovered only a segment of the (mt) DNA.

maybe the starchild is a GMO human?

wonder what expert biogeneticists at Monsanto would say after examining all the evidence?




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


what makes your's the authority?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


the mtdna is of a normal human woman. the nuclear dna which is both the father and mother doesn't match anything in the national genetic database. it indicates the alien father and mother used a human woman's egg to insert their dna. we can do this type of thing today when a woman has mitochondrial disease.

www.umdf.org...

"Depending on which cells are affected, symptoms may include... susceptibility to infection "

this would make sense seeing how the parents were probably not born on Earth and susceptible to disease and infection just like in the War of the Worlds when the aliens succumbed to our germs.

edit on 10-4-2012 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


No the maternal mtDNA is 100% human. It would be the paternal DNA that would be unworldy. If this were true. Which it's not.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Your right, analysis conducted by actual scientists and peer reviewed by experts in the field is clearly subpar. I bow to yahoo answers, it's where I will get all my information from.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


so you're saying there is no such thing as a "capture theory" for the Moon?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I'm saying the capture theory was a long shot at best to begin with, and current knowledge, including analyses of Lunar and Earth material makes it all but impossible. Analysis of the materials, as I provided in a link to actual scientific work, shows that the Earth and the Moon formed from the same materials, at around the same time.

Sorry, capture theory is dead.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Your right, analysis conducted by actual scientists and peer reviewed by experts in the field is clearly subpar. I bow to yahoo answers, it's where I will get all my information from.

That was sarcasm, I get it. People use it alot and I miss it. I found some additional info and it too was laced with non-science, no peer review and subpar. I suppose the real scientists have abandoned this project.






top topics



 
112
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join