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.
the extinction of evolutionsist apes
reply to post by LABTECH767
your info about mitochondria are extremely old. from the sixties.
the mitochondrial dna discovered recently is the true dna not the nucleos dna the autosomal. autosomal is worthless it is junk dna that mostly cause diseases if they got mutated.
the mitochondrial dna comes only from mothers.
98 percent of human dna is junk dna inactive dna that came from viruses 50 percent and the rest from bacteria and other animals.
this goes true for the rest of animals.
as for the active dna , some of it active but essential for life found in mother maternal mitochondrial dna and some active for nothing, producing protein that do nothing end up being used as generic blocks of dna like bricks for building, and most of it break down to just be reassembled by the active dna for nothing all over again.
the active genes in nucleos if not mutated usually do nothing. if mutated cause disease.
this info i present to you is the latest cutting edge what we know about dna and genes.
mitochondria used to be thought for energy, but that was in the sixties , more functions have been added to mitochondia since the sixties.
reply to post by opopanax
that is what I am trying to eneter into your brain. that mutation can causes disease but does not cause evolution (evolution means a situation better than before)
evolution says that a mutation from time to time brings the species to a better situation. that was not noticed not even one time.
and the bad mutation in an individual beats the good mutation in another individual of the same species every time unless in lab situation (intelligent design where humans are the intelligent designer). good and bad mutation is hypothetical depends on the favored outcome expected by humans!
hence random mutation ( which is also orderly meaning obeys the laws of nature ) brings the species worse than before.
I said all dna (coding or non coding in autosomal chromosomes is worthless, since when removing the nuclea with all the dna in it from the cell , the cell stays alive.
only the dna in the cell (outside the nuclea aka the maternal dna (mitochondrial) is essential. if you remove it the cell dies. genes in mitochondrial can compensate for useful gene in autosomal dna.
the old notion that the nuclea is the central command of the cell (just because it is in the center giving the notion of centrality is just imaginary or infered by faulty deduction. Rather the nuclea is just a trap (like the basketball basket, to trap alien dna and tricking it from going to the true dna in the mitocjhondrea or anywhere else.
since foreign dna is programmed to keep crossing membranes, when it crosses the cell membrane it still finds another membrane (nuclea membrane)
which crosses it and find its jackpot where it can transpose in the dna hence it got affixed forever there, and can not do harm any more after it becomes neutralized after the end of the disease that it might cause.
it is believed the y chromsome the smallest of all nuclea dna since it corrrects mutations in itself, might also correct mutations in other autosomal chromosomes.
there is no species evolve from other species. just all species have many prefabricated dna sections being used around , but these sections do different functions for every species (like the sections between humans and chimps) and sections found in humans and bacteria but are not found in chimps (did not get inherited from chimp to humans) yet they are still essential in humans while not necessary essential in bacteria, where they do different functions in bacteria.
the creation theory means the intelligent designer matriculate these dna sections in every species differently, where the complete product creation of a species is just like designer board.
seeing the comparision diagram in the first post shows clearly they did not evolve from each other according to miosis mechanism.
it is probably there is another strand of dna in the chromsome that scientists dont account for even though the original hypothesis of the dna discoverers suggested 3 strands not two.
a boy from britain is found to have four strands suggestion the original is 3 strands.
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
obviously you know better but you are not telling because it is a secret knowldge shared by only the enlightened from an ancient source Hermes before the invention of the wheel. hermes was sooo enlightened but could not invent the wheel!!!!
ha ha ha
beat itedit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)
reply to post by opopanax
your solo example was wrong as all your arguments i responded to one by one.
and nothing I brought is from my aunt house, it is all in the medical literature
with a little googling you ll find i was rightedit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)
alfie clamp has 4 strands rather than three quadriple helix, leading scientist to believe that humans have 3 strands the current belief just like the original theory of the discoverersedit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)
www.cam.ac.uk... cambridge university dna is 4 strandsedit on 10-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)