Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





And that public record DOESN'T BACK UP Pye's claims

That's the point!!
All the tests with explanation are right here...

This poor guy has gone through hell with faulty testing in DNA, and you know what, hes paying for all this.

Click here




Pye's claims aren't backed up by the human genome study
Nope, but that info is public information, so you can check it yourself.




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!
I just gave you a link with all of his published findings, so debunk away





Resorting to "projection" now?
Projecting hell, its more like realizing.




You are confusing "making random claims" with "providing facts"

What a joke
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




posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Or here:



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!
..

How exactly do they know that this DNA is from the child and not the contaminating bacteria? Just a few paragraphs above they note:



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.

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!!"
edit on 18-11-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





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!!"
Having non matching base pairs only proves that those base pairs have not been previously entered into the data base.

Humans, chimps, apes, neanderthals, and everthing possibly related to man has been entered into the NIH data base. 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.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

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.

Please read the entire message. Chances are very high, like above 90%, that the sequence isn't even from the child but bacteria. Also, you obviously don't know anything about human genomes. Also, you still didn't specify the positions that show evidence of tampering. Nonetheless, without a doubt, you will go on claiming such sites exist. Also, have you learned anything about chromosomal fusions? Of course not, right? You'll go on repeating this lie until the day you die, no? I'm a patient man, but there's a limit. Once you dragged me into a pointless debate, and I'm not about to let it happen again. So, have fun believing/claiming whatever you like. That is your right. I'll most likely not respond to anything further you write, so you can have the last word..
edit on 18-11-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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
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.

There is actually NOTHING about the star child that is human, that has been determined for sure.

I think whats going on is your afraid of the truth, like war of the worlds or something. There is even a story that goes along with how the bones of this skull were found in a cave, and the position they were in.

I think your just one of those granolas that can't bare the idea that we are not alone in this universe, even though this skull alone proves it, and I think you fear and run at the idea that ther could be more intelligent life than ourselves.

Well I got news for you, its a big universe out there, and we don't know the half of it. The star child was clearly determined to not be HYDROCEPHALY, and it wasn't Pye that ruled this out, it was many other scientists.
So tell me how is it that your always right, and all these labs that did the tests on the skull are wrong, and how Pye is wrong and how all the input from all the scientists is also wrong.

I think its pretty clear whats going on, your just to scared to admitt the truth. I suggest you read his site and soak it in a little bit. I don't get any trickery when I read it, but then again you believe in evolution so your sort of aimed at trickery.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


junk dna

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?



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


junk dna

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?


You're kidding, right? That article not only does not say that chimps don't have junk DNA, it says the exact opposite. Did you even read it?

While you're going back and doing that, also read these:

www.sscnet.ucla.edu...
link.springer.com...-1
hmg.oxfordjournals.org...

And then once you're done with those, read these and please explain in full how your hypotheses accounts for all of the listed experimental observations and why the current theory of evolution does not. Saying the Bible told me so just won't cut it here.

www.jstor.org...
www.pnas.org...
www.jstor.org...
www.nature.com...
www.jstor.org...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
www.cabdirect.org...;jsessionid=BCABFD10A1FD9337589161C6FF109587
www.springerlink.com... (WARNING: clicking this link will download a PDF file)
www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...
www.jstor.org...

etc.

tooth, so much of what we do today relies on the theory of evolution to be true and there has so far been no evidence to contradict it. How anyone in this day and age could still hold on to the idea that it is false is absolutely beyond me.

- Our conservation efforts rely on understanding predator-prey relationships, which itself derives from an understanding of how natural selection operates.
- Drug resistance by microbes is founded on the concepts of natural selection.
- The management of endangered species populations is performed in order to maximise genetic variation, a concept derived from evolution.
- In designing drugs to combat disease, the target will be focused on modes of inheritance and the conservation of the genes that encode them.
- Modelling of future disease outbreaks.
- Understanding pesticide resistance.

Once you have a hypothesis that explains all of those concepts, as well as the hundreds of thousands of papers I didn't link, in as much detail and with as much accuracy as the theory of evolution, you will have something worth discussing. Until that time, your blatant ignorance and inability to read even the articles that you yourself link is really just a sign that you are either completely and utterly without the capability of intelligent and independent thought or that you are a very dedicated troll with far too much free time.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


No I missunderstood Pye, he was saying there were segments that didn't match anything we have seen before.

Speciation is nothing more than observed adaptation, which all though is claimed to be a part of evoution, is not. There is no basis that proves that adaptation has anything to do with evolution.

Lateral gene transfer has no basis when the example is on bacteria, again adaptation is usless as proof of evolution.
Thats like saying bacteria adapted so I must have a common ancestor with apes.

Genetic revolutions founder affects and speciation. There is no proof that just because there are small changes, that more changes, much less different changes would occur overtime, its all a guess. Most of these are even written in the context, that things are either assumed, or that it appears as such, none of wich is a basis for proof.

sympatric speciation comes as no shock when I'm trying to prove that all species eat the same food within a species, however speciation has no basis since it's nothing more than adaptation, and that is not proof I share a common ancestor with apes.

Morphilogical events don't prove evolution, of course I think of evolution as more of a super bug, or a creator, after all it is responsible for creating over a billion species, which is by all definitions a creator. It would have to be a super bug in order to dodge our ability to identify it, trace it, predict it, follow it, while it supposedly makes insane complex changes to our DNA in ways that for the most part, we are unable to do.

Evolution has no scientific value, its not predictable, its not recreatable, its not traceable, its not identifiable, it fails the litmus for determining something is a scientific theory, at best its not even a theory, but a hypothesis.

Your mass links only prove how much something so simple can be overlooked, it's what scientists like to call PROOF. No one has ever witnessed anything evolving, and they never will. Even in speciation, there is no proof that it can continue, much less to other genes, Evolution is a fabrication of the mind where people have done a sloppy job at connecting a bunch of dots, thats not proof.

The bottom line is if evolution did work the way that a lot of people are led to believe in, our world would look a hell of a lot different than it does right now. For starters, we would see a lot of slight variations within the same species, but what we actually see is the opposite, we see many species that have a few things in common. We are missing way to many inbetween species to prove that evolution ever existed, and the failure rate of a new species is not high enough to claim that only the stong survived, they are all basically healthy.

We are also lacking the oodles of fossils that would support that theory. I respect the fact that your trying to flood me into overload with information, but that doesn't prove the theory right. Well it would if any of it seemed credible. No one is ever going to believe in evolution unless there is proof. Those that have chosen to believe are doing so on a guess that it's real.

The diversity we see today does not prove evolution, there is always the possibility of creation, and we have historical books that are telling is that is exactly how it happened. I have my own reservations on both sides but untill we are able to accuratly dismiss the history, its going to be pretty hard to believe in something you can't prove.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

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.

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!



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Here is something else that is kind of screwed up. Evolution has tried to claim many different things as being under the umbrella of evolution.

Natural selection is an excellent one. With no proof that its part of evolution, as far as identifying it, the claim is made, where as I allready have historical documentation that says thats wrong.

According to the bible, this planet was fitted with every herb, every plant, and every animal, of course these all came from other planets. The problem is that you can't do that, you can't subtract or add species from whats supposed to be a balanced planet.

Each planet is designed with everyting in balance, and someone went around and gathered all this life and brought them to earth. This is why we are in the 6tth largest extinction right now, because the apex preditors are winning over all the other species, and scientists are baffled right now, not understanding why we are losing 99% of life as we know it. It's because they are making the wrong assumption that all this life belongs here to begin with.

Now accoding to evolutionists, this is all perfectly natural, and its all a regular part of the evolution cycle, but again there is no proof of that, its just a big phoney baloney claim with nothing to back it up.

Granted natural selection is occuring, in that sense, of course its going to, all of this life that wasn't suppose to be here was brought here. What we are witnessing is a balance in the fail. This is NOT natural and its NOT a normal thing to witness.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


And so what exactly do you think the definition of evolution is?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


It's an assortment of different observations, that aren't accurate.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Observations like that lack of "blue laminate" on our DNA proving that we were genetically engineered?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

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!


www.talkorigins.org...

This talks about the experiments and other evidence we have that proves evolution. Scientific theories always evolve as new information comes out.
at curve fitting. Let me know what you have that counters that link. I'm interested.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Observations like that lack of "blue laminate" on our DNA proving that we were genetically engineered?
Exactly!



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


There is no proof that speciation is part of evolution, aside from the assumption that it's part of the process. There is no proof that macroevoution is part of evoution. No one has ever witnessed or traced macroevolution, so how do we know it exists. Everyone tells me its just microevolution many times over, and over much more time. The problem is that there is no proof that macroevolution can even occur, there is no proof that one species can eventually evolve to another species over time. There is also no evidence that futher changes occur, much less that they would even be different changes.

Evolution is NOT falsifiable, it's not testable, its no predictable, its not traceable. It has no scientific value, at all.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The flu isn't adaptation, the flu actually changes its own genetics. the flu is very fast paced evolution.

The fact that the flu can hop from a pig to a human is proof, as the flu has to change its own genetics in order to accomplish this. The flu has several strands of RNA. It can completely mutate only one strand, it will swap out parts of RNA in order to make a new variant. Which is why scientists CANT predict the flu season.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Which is ADAPTATION
.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

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?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





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?
Yes it's true, I am one of the few people on about evolution related material that will admitt when he is wrong.

What I'm saying is that the findings made under the umbrella of evolution have no proof that they are related, its only assumed, and accepted as evolution. For example there is no proof that speciation is part of evolution or that macroevolution is either, much less is there proof of it happening.

A protein is part of the building blocks of DNA
Chromosomes carry genetic information in the fom of genes.
A gene is located on a chromosome.
Base pairs are the double helix that contribute to both DNA and RNA.

You seem to be a pretty smart guy itero, how can people believe in evolution when its not falsifiable, it's not testable, it's not predictable, it's not traceable, and not repeatable? It appears to have no scientific value.





top topics
 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join