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.

 

Starchild Skull DNA Testing Proves Not From This Earth

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I am on the same page as you. We must fit the theory to the facts and cease trying to make the facts fit our theories - discarding those which do not support their hypothesis. It is called knowledge filtering, and is ruining our ability to study our past, and serves as a strong deterrent to academics wishing to pursue such 'fringe' research. Those researchers who dare find evidence that is contrary to the Darwinist paradigm and have the gall to publish those findings do so at the risk of their livelihoods and reputations; a strong deterrent, indeed.

Darwinists also use the missing link to negate the fact that Cro-Magnons appear out of nowhere, looking nothing like anything that has come before. What they fail to mention is that dozens of such links would be needed to show any kind of plausible transition from any pre-human to Cro-Magnons.
*It clearly didn't happen--and since they're experts about such things, they know it didn't happen. However, to acknowledge that would play right into the desperate hands of Creationists and Intelligent Designers, not to mention give strong support to Interventionists.

Humans simply do not fit the pattern of primate development on Earth. Notice the word development instead of evolution. Species that appear here do undergo changes in morphology over time. It's called microevolution, because it describes changes in body parts. Darwinists use the undeniable reality of microevolution to extrapolate the reality of macroevolution, which is change at the species-into-more-advanced-species level. That is blatantly not evident in the fossil record, especially when it comes to human physiology.

Relatively speaking, primate bones are much thicker and heavier than human bones. Primate muscles are five to 10 times stronger than ours. Primates have large, round eyes capable of seeing at night.

*And most importantly, primates have 48 chromosomes, while humans have "only" 46 chromosomes. Two entire chromosomes represent a heck of a lot of DNA removed from the human genome, yet somehow that removal made us "superior" in countless ways. It doesn't make sense.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by farflungheroe
 

Spot on, mate. Welcome to ATS, that's a great first post.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
The highly educated on this planet have more of the answers to our questions, but if they are paid by the state ,then they are controlled by the state as to what they may or may not say, hence the often nay nays that continue to block our education, they are there soooo quickly with their negative responses, maybe with the internet we may be allowed to ignore the dross and get this truth that is being with held.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by farflungheroe
reply to post by tezzajw
 



*And most importantly, primates have 48 chromosomes, while humans have "only" 46 chromosomes. Two entire chromosomes represent a heck of a lot of DNA removed from the human genome, yet somehow that removal made us "superior" in countless ways. It doesn't make sense.

This happened due to the fusion of two chromosomes.
Fusion, inversion amd transference happen all the time in this manner. Although I agree that this is interesting. The fusion happens when telemeres(end caps) joined. The DNA material that resulted is the next step in evolution according to theory. I read an article by Jean De Grouchy in the Journal Genetica that highlighted some very unusual observations derived from looking at fusions and inversion in primates. That noted that the DNA inversion had specific results in species that did appear as organized evolution and that chromosomal redistribution (using ionizing irradiation) in fusion and inversion(when looking at disease as this form of mutation is mostly detrimental to humans) was not random. Very interesting?



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by NavalFC
and no we have not colonized this part of thew galaxy.. Do you even know what the definition of colonize is?
EARTH IS OUR HOME PLANET. WE DID NOT COLONIZE IT, HUMANITY WAS BORN HERE.
and currently Earth is the only planet we inhabit. this is NOT colonization.

How do you know all of that? Prove to me that humanity was born here. Show me where humans came from, conclusively, with evidence.


Evolution.

Although it is possible that the seeds of life came from organic material delivered by a comet, we evolved on this planet. This is WELL documented.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by cruzion
GTFO!
You've never heard of the fossil record?
Why would you even involve yourself in a thread that is centric on science, when you seem to have skipped past one of the basics of the discipline?

Ok, answer me these questions and I'll believe that human life originated on Earth.

First, show me how life can spontaneously animate from organic material. If you can't show me how single celled organisms came to being, then it's kind of difficult for you to show me how humans evolved from them.

There is a huge difference between organic material evolving into life and basic single celled life evolving to what we are now.


Second, explain to me how there is not a single example of one species evolving even partially into another distinct and separate species.

There are many. Try reading.

You seem to bring the same type of questions from one thread to another. These questions, for the most part have real, scientific answer. Your refusal to believe them, doesn't make them any less valid.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


NavalFC,
I'd give up trying to provide enough evidence. For certain people it will never be enough. You've made very good, solid points.

On a side note, I personally feel that military personnel deserve our appreciation and respect. For those here who felt it was important to insult military personnel, I find it important to THANK military personnel.

So THANKS !!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


listen as far as i know there you cannot find a single science theory that is definitively proven, that is the nature of science, everything changes according to new information.

darn if i asked you to prove we exist in the real world an not in a simulation, could you do it?
(now this is just an example)

as you can probably read me and naval had our differences in this thread, which in my eyes are good, it stimulates.
i wanted more definitive evidence that it was really human, well guess what, that came, x+y equals human, anything else is at this point so improbable that it would be a stretch for anyone.





An experiment demonstrating allopatric speciation in the fruit fly (Drosophila pseudoobscura) conducted by Diane Dodd. A single population of flies was divided into two, with one of the populations fed with starch-based food and the other with maltose-based food. After the populations had diverged over many generations, the groups were again mixed; it was observed that the flies continued to prefer mating with others from the same original population.

Note: "eight or more generations pass" is not found in the original image but is cited in speciation from Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308–1311.


now if you cant believe that you can do the experiment for yourself, on the following website they have over 200 different subspecies of fruit flies, some even mutated and created by human interference.

stockcenter.ucsd.edu...

best regards



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 


Many think thats how humans became what they are today. The link from ape to man, Alien intervention.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Paleontologists have been able to recover dinosaur DNA by using acid on the fossilized bones. They could do the same thing for the so called Star Child.

It's a money making scam, nothing more.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Evolution.
Although it is possible that the seeds of life came from organic material delivered by a comet, we evolved on this planet. This is WELL documented.

Your answer contradicts itself.

I asked how life began on Earth, blah blah blah... you tell me evolution.

However, you then admit that maybe we were seeded by a comet!?!?! Way to contradict yourself there... well done.

Again, conclusively, how did life begin on Earth?

If we were seeded by a comet, then life colonised Earth, it did not begin here. Being colonised helps answer the Fermi paradox, in that 'we' are the colonising life forms in this part of the galaxy.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Evolution.
Although it is possible that the seeds of life came from organic material delivered by a comet, we evolved on this planet. This is WELL documented.

Your answer contradicts itself.

I asked how life began on Earth, blah blah blah... you tell me evolution.

However, you then admit that maybe we were seeded by a comet!?!?! Way to contradict yourself there... well done.

Again, conclusively, how did life begin on Earth?

If we were seeded by a comet, then life colonised Earth, it did not begin here. Being colonised helps answer the Fermi paradox, in that 'we' are the colonising life forms in this part of the galaxy.



what the... NO one has ever stated that life began on Earth via evolution. Evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life on Earth, not the origin! totally different field there buddy.

The hypothesis we have quoted for HOW life began on Earth is called Abiogenesis, and the thread you replied to was one called PanSpermia


Evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life, only the diversity of life.

As far as evolution has gone, yes Science has shown that every living thing on Earth has comment descent - came from one organism billions of years ago.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Evolution.
Although it is possible that the seeds of life came from organic material delivered by a comet, we evolved on this planet. This is WELL documented.

Your answer contradicts itself.

I asked how life began on Earth, blah blah blah... you tell me evolution.


Let me clarify. Evolution did not create life but after life started, evolution is what brought us to this point.


Again, conclusively, how did life begin on Earth?

Since there is no amount of evidence that would convince you how life began on earth, there is no point in trying to explain it.


If we were seeded by a comet, then life colonised Earth, it did not begin here.

Let me clarify again. Organic molecules....NOT LIFE....MAY have seeded the earth. Once organic molecules were introduced, they would have created life over a period of time.


Being colonised helps answer the Fermi paradox, in that 'we' are the colonising life forms in this part of the galaxy.

We have not colonized any world YET.
We have no way of knowing if we are the only life forms in our part of the galaxy. My hunch is that life is VERY plentiful throughout the universe including within our galaxy. My hunch is based on the number of sun like stars, planets discovered, organic molecules discovered outside our planet, etc...



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by tezzajw
Again, conclusively, how did life begin on Earth?

Since there is no amount of evidence that would convince you how life began on earth, there is no point in trying to explain it.

Since you don't know and would only be taking a guess, I can see why you won't try and explain it.

Nice dodge! Well done!

[edit on 10-12-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   


Where are the examples of transitional types of fossils?

That's what makes the starchild a little different.


There is no such thing as a transitional fossil. Evolution is continuous. Everything is constantly evolving. Humanity is giving birth, every generation, to slightly different and evolving humans. Forms melve, one into another. There are no steps, it's a seamless ramp.
I think what you are asking is "why don't we have more fossils represented in this transition?"
The answer is because we havent found them! Some of the fossil examples we have from various groups of past life can be counted on one hand. A lot of fossils are not even complete - just part of an animal. Other groups we might have hundreds. That's just how fossils are. It is a very fine window of opportunity for something to die and become fossilized. Scientists can only work with the information that they have. A lot of smart people from a lot of different fields have worked for a lot of years to put together the tree of life of existence on this planet. Of course there are going to be gaps, but that does not negate the whole of the history of the evolution of man, or peoples accumen and methods in deciphering it.
People used to say the exact same argument about fish coming onto land. It was hypothesised that we should find fossils of fish-like creatures, with legs. Then a few years later, they found fossils of lobe-finned fish. So there was the 'transitional' between fish and lizard-likes. That was a big gap for a long time, but it came right in the end.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by cruzion
 


excellent post.
a real shame that too many people are ready to debunk evolution based on a lack of 'evidence'

i would however say that the idea of this planet being 'seeded' is an interesting one.
now in my mind the first and foremost reason for seeding a planet would be to actually prove evolution, i hope someone can follow me here.
if this was the case, would they not have had to do it in a way similar to how the thesis of a comet depositing organic compounds would have worked??
purely speculative, it just kinda crept up on me during the night.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Oodain
 


You know, I was wrong!
EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil.
Even when we seem to have stagnation in a species, the liklyhood is they are physically well adapted to their niche in the environment, but there was probably still adaptions going on, like behavior and community, possibly even communication, either through visual signals, smells, chemical stimulus. Even behavior and communication have to evolve.
Totally off topic, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Anyway - starchild - one boring scam.

I'm not sure at all, but I believe the first organisms appeared quite close to the start of the Hadean, not long after it began to cool down. Early Hadean Earth was volcanic, with a lot of mafic and ultra-mafic activity, and a lot of heat generated from early solar syatem bombardment from planetesimals, plus the increased radiation emission from the core. The surmisation was that as the crust began cooling and solidifying, varied chemical and mineral elements were deposited on the surface, accompanied by outgassing from volcanoes. That may well have been enough to kick start the reaction to aminos and protobionts. Because of all the debris flying about, it is more than likely there were numerous comet collisions, and of course, ice melts and makes water...There is speculation that early Earth was hit by another planet - which one, I have no idea, but the moon may have been partly formed from debris from that collision. The main evidence for the impact is our over-sized core, in comparison to other planets. Who knows, the planet that bounced off us might have been covered in iced up protobionts and aminos.
It's kind of the holy grail of science, to create life. I don't know how the other poster expects us to work it out on a conspiracy forum!

[edit on 11-12-2008 by cruzion]



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
hehe well, we can always try.

but as said before only speculation.

the thing that actually got me on to the idea i mentioned was actually when i tried to find a method of proving evolution.
i kinda went the opposite way on that one.

i could actually imagine the human race doing a seeding project once we have the technology.

i hope i didnt offend anyone, after rereading my last post i found it a bit more offensive than i would have liked, but oh well, no one is perfect.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Here are some key words in your post.


Originally posted by cruzion
I'm not sure at all, but I believe...
The surmisation was that...
That may well have been enough to kick start...
...it is more than likely there were...
There is speculation that...
...which one, I have no idea, but the moon may have been...
Who knows... ...might have been...

Where is there ANYTHING definitive amongst that whole post full of speculation?

You're guessing. Plain and simple.


Originally posted by cruzion
It's kind of the holy grail of science, to create life. I don't know how the other poster expects us to work it out on a conspiracy forum!


I asked NavalFC how life began and he stated that he had the answers:

Originally posted by NavalFC
Indeed I do have the answers.

as for the origin of life , the chemicals that made up ... [snip the joined dots] ... leading to us.

thats the simple version, filling in the all betweens would take more text then im allowed in my posts. heres a video on it:

NavalFC knows how life is created, so what's holding you up creating your own? Ask him to supply the test tubes and bunsen burners...



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oodain

i could actually imagine the human race doing a seeding project once we have the technology.



As for life being seeded here on earth, these might be the culprit; 2.3 billion year-old spherical starseed's may have already been discovered...

The spheres are of two types--'one of solid bluish metal with white flecks, and another which is a hollow ball filled with a white spongy center. Some have a thin shell about a quarter inch thick, and when they are broken the strange spongy material that disintegrates into dust upon contact with air. They vary in size from 30 – 50 mm in diameter and have perfectly concentric grooves round the center as if they were molded. Inside the hard "shell" some have the spongy substance, while in others it resembles charcoal.

The manufactured metallic spheroids have been mined out of a layer of pyrophyllite rock and geologically and by the various radio-isotope dating techniques are shown as being 2.8 - 3 billion years old, long before ma. they are as hard as steel, while the material (pyrophyllite) in which they are found, is as soft as limestone.

type 1


type 2


I'm sure ATS has threads on these things. They look like Iapetus, which looks like the death star.

Hoagland wrote an essay about the topic, titled "A moon with a View." An excellent read and very comprehensive.

Here it is: www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm

[edit on 11-12-2008 by farflungheroe]




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join