It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
All the tests with explanation are right here...
And that public record DOESN'T BACK UP Pye's claims
That's the point!!
Nope, but that info is public information, so you can check it yourself.
Pye's claims aren't backed up by the human genome study
I just gave you a link with all of his published findings, so debunk away
You simply gobbled up his koolaid...he only makes claims, but never backs them up with data. There is NOTHING in the human genome that suggests tampering
Prove us wrong, tell us EXACTLY which genes are affected and why!
Projecting hell, its more like realizing.
Resorting to "projection" now?
The real joke is on you, I found this link so easily that provides all of his facts, your just to lazy to research That would be a troll
You are confusing "making random claims" with "providing facts"
What a joke
These results were not surprising since the 2003 Trace Genetics test concluded that the Starchild had a human mother. However, these were not the only results. Other BLAST results, like the one below for a 342 nucleotide fragment, gave a very different answer.
It states that within the millions of DNA base pair strings catalogued in the NIH database, none were even “similar” to this section of the Starchild Skull’s DNA! And please note that this astonishing result was obtained with the search parameters set to the broadest match criteria that seeks even a “somewhat similar” match, not only an exact match.
For all of the Starchild’s DNA fragments, a wide net was cast into the NIH database with the hope there would be minimal doubt about results. Indeed, they were unequivocal: Some of the Starchild’s nuDNA is different from anything previously found on Earth!
The Starchild’s DNA was now a candidate for such comprehensive genetic analysis, even though its burial for 900 years meant that as much as 90% of the DNA recovered from its bone would come from contaminating bacteria.
Having non matching base pairs only proves that those base pairs have not been previously entered into the data base.
Nonetheless, we instantly jump to the conclusion that this nucleotide sequence certainly originates to one of the chromosomes of the child. Further still, they fail to note that not getting a match doesn't mean anything. It's not special at all, i.e. it happens all the time. Instead, they make this seem like a super exciting result, "different from anything previously found on Earth!! OMG an alien!!"
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Star child has some sections that don't match, in other words there are parts that are obviously not human and not origon of this earth.
You must be narcissistic, because your in total denial even though you have been presented with mountains of evidence. I guess the 5 different DNA reports he paid for also mean nothing to you. In addition to the plethora of input from other scholars on this subject.
So here we have scientists presenting DNA findings of a now extinct hominin and add that studies show that they mated with homo sapiens...just like Neanderthals did.
He then randomly claims that proves that the "starchild" skull is alien. No proof, no evidence, no relation to the science behind the new hominin whatsoever...just a random claim. But of course he expects his gullible readers to be impressed by the mentioning of that scientific research lab...even though it has ZERO relation to that stupid skull of his.
It's the oldest pseudo-science trick in the book: Present some real science that sounds impressive...and then simply make your claim pretending it's somehow related to that study.
WHAT A JOKE TOOTH!! Stop falling for childish nonsense like that
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
Just look at how chimps don't have junk DNA yet this accounts for 95% of our DNA.
Look at how this site is grasping at straws trying to make an evolutionary connection .
Sorry man, its so obvious this DNA is not from earth, so then I ask, where is it from?
Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by addygrace
Wow a creation "scientist" misrepresenting the findings of an article in nature... Shocking.
Did you actually read the article? It doesn't counter the Theory of Evolution. It says that new findings may revise what we currently think led to complex excretory systems in animals.
One piece of evolutionary theory may be revised, IF these two biologists can prove their findings.
Got news for you.... This happens at least once a year as more research is done within the field. Science is constantly evolving, just the same as the universe and life in general.
Originally posted by Macdon
I thought scientific proof meant same results after repeated experimentation? Since this theory no, hypothesis, is constantly evolving I must conclude it is not proven and you Darwinists are merely curve fitting.
No, I am not a creationist and do not assume to call me so!
Yes it's true, I am one of the few people on about evolution related material that will admitt when he is wrong.
Except you've admitted that you were completely wrong about the "blue laminate". So if those are the kinds of observations you're basing your interventionism on, you've a very long way to go.
Have you learned the difference between a protein, a base pair, a chromosome, and a gene yet?