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: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Let's see, he sold 1800 books at $15 and has unlimited supply of paperbacks on Amazon, and he can finagle the funding?

B. S.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
Indeed I do have the answers. As far as evolution you obviously havent looked very hard at all, the fossil record is full of transitional forms of fossils on the course of evolution orginating from one species to the next over time.

That's great! Show me a few of them!



as for chromosomal fusion, this is a mutation that happened during the course of evolution.

How did it happen?



as for the origin of life , the chemicals that made up the early earths atmosphere, combined with electricty from lightning and such as a catalsy, resulted in the formation of nucleotides

How did it happen?



which evenetually chained and formed poly nucleotides,

How did it happen?



which evventually formed self replicating poly nucleotides but so primitive by todays standards we might not have called them alive,

How did it happen?



eventualy DNA evlved as the supree poly nucletic chaining method,

How did the DNA evolve?



leading to simple organisms leading to cells

How how did that happen?



, leading to sea creatures,

How did that happen?



leading to land creatures,

How did that happen?



leading to us.

How did that happen?

All that you have done is waved your hands and not conclusively stated how any of that allegedly happened - and you want me to believe that humans evolved on Earth after reading that??? Who are you kidding?



never heard of homo erectus? homo habilis>? what do you mean only human fossils.

Where in the fossil record is there a transitional fossil between homo erectus and homo sapiens? Where in the fossil record is there a transitional fossil between homo habilis and homo sapiens? Where in the fossil record is there a transitional fossil bewteen any of the various homo x and homo sapiens?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


as far as the hows of evolution, it is called natural selection. When ever a organism reproduces, it does so with variance, as when DNA replicates it is not a perfect copy everytime

take the giraffe for an example, its long neck, able to reach upinto trees and grab food and eat it. What would happen to any giraffes with ashorter neck? they would die because they couldnt eat. this means that the genes for a long neck are most likely to be passed on.

this principal works throughout evolution. the variations produced by organisms that allow them to survive better get passed on, while genetic variations that do not, do not live on.

as these small changes accumulate, over time, you look back and see that many small changes made over periods of time due to this principal = alot of change over a long period of time.

now th fundamental reason for this of ourse is the creatures environment. If the giraffes environment were changed suddenly, by a diaster or some such, and the food supply was closer to the ground, then any giraffe with a shorter then avg neck would be more likely to survive, and thus pass on the genes for sad attrbute onto its off spring/




as far as homo habilis and homo erectus, I know now you didnt click that link. this is clearly shown:
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


and i linked you to a video. how about actually watching it.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NavalFC
 


another video
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
as far as the hows of evolution, it is called natural selection. When ever a organism reproduces, it does so with variance, as when DNA replicates it is not a perfect copy everytime

Right... sure it does. All of this happens, but you can't describe how life began. Interesting response, NavalFC. You're still waving your hands.




as far as homo habilis and homo erectus, I know now you didnt click that link. this is clearly shown:
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens

Right... sure. So where in the fossil record is there a cross between homo sapiens and any of these other homo x?

Here's a tip for you - I'm not able to watch a video on less than 52kbs dial-up modem connection.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


It does. Do you look exactly like your parents? didnt think so. genetic variation.

Oh and as for life origins I gave you a video linking you to sciences hypothesis regarding the origins of life, but you should have told me the tidbit about the modem. I wasnt aware that you COULDNT watch the videos.

ane evolution is not wand waving when Im abkle toe xplain using demonstrated and observable characteristics how it works, genetic variation is a fact.

another fact? some organisms are better suited to their evnironment then others.

So what do you get? those that are least suited DIE< the ebst suited live on, passing on their genes, with variation and continue to change, and those least suited continue to die, while those best suited continue to live and pass on their genes. waving a wand? there is nothing magical or mystical going on here, there is no exunplainable force pr phenomena, unlessyour calling genetic variation, survival and death super natural?

[edit on 9-12-2008 by NavalFC]

Just like n my giraffe example. if you cant get food, you die, if you die, your genes dont get passed on. its that simple. I dont know why your making evolution out to be this big wand waving what ever, its not, and I have not said anything of the sort. you accuse me of wad waving when I have done no such thing



oh and as far as the crosses between the homo species, this is done by analyzing DNA to establish the relation


all of thiose lsited were different occurences of human evolution, starting with homo hablis and ending with homo sapien.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by NavalFC]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
It does. Do you look exactly like your parents? didnt think so. genetic variation.

I am still of the same species as my parents. Just as my children and their children and their children (continue the loop...) will still be of the same species as me. At what point are we going to deviate from being anything other than human in the future?

The best that science can tell me is that around 120,000 years ago, maybe up to around 200,000 years ago, my ancestors were also the same as me - human.



Oh and as for life origins I gave you a video linking you to sciences hypothesis regarding the origins of life,

I don't want a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not something that has necessarily been proven true. I wanted you to state how life began, as you implied that you had all of the answers.

You claimed that you knew how life started on Earth and how humans managed to appear on Earth. Don't start back-peddling and inform me that it's JUST a hypothesis!



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   


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.


Well, all life on Earth is descended from Protobionts and Prokaryotes cells (we have fossil evidence of Prokaryotes from 3.5 billion years ago). Cells that have no membrane and reproduce asexually. After a few hundred million years, we get to Eukaryotes cells (complex cells), which have a membrane and reproduce by DNA transference. The next stage was cells coming together in communities and diversifying through environmental differences.
There was research into the conditions and environment on early Earth, and the chemicals and processes needed to create the first cellular organisms - Abiogenesis, and I believe the duo that did this research (in the 70's?) won the Nobel prize for their findings. They tentatively established that a combination of the heat of the planet, combined with the early chemical atmosphere, possible mineral deposition on the surface, and possibly other elements such as comet debris combined to create amino acids then protobionts.



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


Speciation has occured in our lifetime. Alas, we haven't been around long enough to see things change enough into new, distinct phyla, genus, class or famillies or orders or whatever you want. The higher you go up in the taxa, the longer we will have to wait to see that amount of accumulative speciation.



I've been reading a few articles. Many anthropologists felt that between 5 to 8 million years ago was when humans separated from the common ancestor that we allegedly have with chimpanzees. However, in around 1996, with a study done of mitochondrial DNA, it appeared as though the entire human history only went back to around 200,000 years. Similar testing of the male Y chromosome agreed with those results.


Well, when do you stop classifying something as being 'human-like'? Homo sapiens have been around for about 250 000 years. Neandertals were human-like, but they weren't homo sapiens, and they were around for twice the length of time that homo sapiens has been here. What about homo erectus? Kinda human, but not really. Homo habilis is not human at all but still kinda resembles a homo sapien. What about ustralopithecus africanus? What about Australopithecus anamensis? The further we go back, the less they look like homo sapiens, so at what point do you consider breaking point were they don't look humanoid? Evolution is a gradual, slow process, and every animal is a descendant from a slightly different animal before it. When we look at hominids, they occupy a time frame of a couple hundred million years. If you follow the lineage back 200 million years, they hardly even look like apes! They have charecteristics that will become traits in apes and hominids in later evolution, but we wouldn't call them apes. They are a branch on the tree of mammals, and the whole forest is descended from proto-mammals. You can keep going back till you hit prokaryotes. Almost everything alive is eukaryotik, in that is composed of complex cells.



Higher order primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46. How can the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes of primates fuse together to make humans?


You would have to ask someone that is more versed in such things.



What about the fossil record? Where does it show anything other than present day humans as being anything other than homo sapiens, dating back to around 140,000 years ago?


Human evolution



I'm sure that if you don't have the answers, then NavalFC does. He seems sure of himself in every post that he types.


Good thing about science is many people can contribute. They can also correct mistakes; science isn't infallible, but it's strength is in that it can change when new data arises. I'm sure NavalFC will have some valid contributions make.

Edit: in fact he did. In the time it took me to compose my post, there has been several posts on the thread, so excuse any repetition.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by cruzion]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by NavalFC
It does. Do you look exactly like your parents? didnt think so. genetic variation.

I am still of the same species as my parents. Just as my children and their children and their children (continue the loop...) will still be of the same species as me. At what point are we going to deviate from being anything other than human in the future?

The best that science can tell me is that around 120,000 years ago, maybe up to around 200,000 years ago, my ancestors were also the same as me - human.



Oh and as for life origins I gave you a video linking you to sciences hypothesis regarding the origins of life,

I don't want a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not something that has necessarily been proven true. I wanted you to state how life began, as you implied that you had all of the answers.

You claimed that you knew how life started on Earth and how humans managed to appear on Earth. Don't start back-peddling and inform me that it's JUST a hypothesis!


the avgerage human zygote containts 128 mutations from the paternal DNA. they look likemyou, but with minor genetic variations. give these minor geentic variations an enormous amount of time to happen and you get big changes, it is not rocket science: continous small changes + over a period of time = big changes. not rocket scientists.

you seem to be under the misconcpetion that if evolution happens, your just going to one day pop out al whole different species. not true its small changes over time..again, like you growing up. Day to day a person doesnt notice any changes in the mirror, but over a long period of time, and yes. big changes.
as far as modern humans, yes theyve been around for a oup hundred thousand years but the point is the modern human is the result of evolution, over time. It wasnt just that one day a homo erectuds gave birth to a homo sapien. This concept is not hard to understand.

another analogy: if a person gains or loses large amounts of weight, day to day you notice nothing but over time the loss or gain become apparent.

As far as life on Earth, I di not claim to know. In your challenge to me, in the response I said I had a few of the answers. but i already outlined the hypothesis to you, so I wont do so again, but here is this URL with the hypothesis free for you to read:
www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by cruzion
They tentatively established that a combination of the heat of the planet, combined with the early chemical atmosphere, possible mineral deposition on the surface, and possibly other elements such as comet debris combined to create amino acids then protobionts.

'Tentatively' ? 'possible' ? 'possibly' ? These are not definitive terms.

They really don't know how life started, so they guessed. That's what the words, tentatively, possible and possibly mean - a guess.



Evolution is a gradual, slow process, and every animal is a descendant from a slightly different animal before it.

Well why isn't this the case for fossil records? Every homo sapien fossil looks like a homo sapien.

Where are the examples of transitional types of fossils?

That's what makes the starchild a little different.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


the starchild fossil is that of a homo sapien with a deformity. its a hydrocephallic skull. that and X and Y chromosomes were found meaning its a male with a mother and father both human.

Furthermore homosapien fossils are going to be homo sapien fossils, but the point was homo sapiens didnt exist always, they came as a result of evolution from the previous forms, of which there are fossils!
and even now homo sapiens do have minor changes, scienice predicts that in the year 3000 humans will be on avg over 6 ft tall, have a life expectancy of 120, and there will probabably not be nearly as many seperate races as we have now, as nter racial mariage will have merged the gene pool



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
as far as modern humans, yes theyve been around for a oup hundred thousand years but the point is the modern human is the result of evolution, over time. It wasnt just that one day a homo erectuds gave birth to a homo sapien. This concept is not hard to understand.

Where in the fossil record is it supported that there is a slow transition from homo x to homo sapien?

How many homo sapien fossils are anything BUT homo sapien?

If evolution happens slowly and gradually, then there should be all manner of different fossils being found that represent these gradual changes. So, where are the variant homo sapien fossils?

You can't give me accurate answers about human fossils, which is not surprising. You can't give me accurate answers about how life on Earth began, which is not surprising.

That's why it's worth keeping an open mind about the starchild skull. Unless it can be conclusively proven what it is and where it came from, there will be part of it shrouded in mystery. YOU can't explain why the skull looks like it does, you can only make a guess. It may prove to be human. If so, it's still an interesting skull with unusual properties that raise more questions worthy of study.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


*sigh*

different homo sapien fossils? I dont think you get it.

Homo habilis, hom erectus, homo neaderthalis, ARE the fossil changes leading up to homo sampiens.

We descend from those!
Homo sapiens is as we are NOW and all those fossils REPRESENT the changes

Each different change recieves its own classification!



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by NavalFC
as far as modern humans, yes theyve been around for a oup hundred thousand years but the point is the modern human is the result of evolution, over time. It wasnt just that one day a homo erectuds gave birth to a homo sapien. This concept is not hard to understand.

Where in the fossil record is it supported that there is a slow transition from homo x to homo sapien?

How many homo sapien fossils are anything BUT homo sapien?

If evolution happens slowly and gradually, then there should be all manner of different fossils being found that represent these gradual changes. So, where are the variant homo sapien fossils?

You can't give me accurate answers about human fossils, which is not surprising. You can't give me accurate answers about how life on Earth began, which is not surprising.

That's why it's worth keeping an open mind about the starchild skull. Unless it can be conclusively proven what it is and where it came from, there will be part of it shrouded in mystery. YOU can't explain why the skull looks like it does, you can only make a guess. It may prove to be human. If so, it's still an interesting skull with unusual properties that raise more questions worthy of study.



Prove? The star child skull had a human X and Y chromosome! this means it had a human father and mother, each donating one of the chromosomes!!!!!! and starchild was MALE.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
Furthermore homosapien fossils are going to be homo sapien fossils, but the point was homo sapiens didnt exist always,

See, this is where you don't see your own contradiction.

You state that homo sapien fossils have always been homo sapien fossils. Fair enough. You then state that homo sapiens did not appear overnight. They were not suddenly born from another homo x.

Yet, you also claim that homo sapiens didn't always exist. So, if they didn't exist, then where did they come from? How can we have a situation where homo sapiens never existed, to having a situation where they suddenly exist?



they came as a result of evolution from the previous forms, of which there are fossils!

But these 'previous form' fossils are NOT homo sapien.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that there was a slow evolutionary process, but also adhere to the idea that all homo sapien fossils are distinctly homo sapien.



and even now homo sapiens do have minor changes,

Yeah, but we're all still homo sapiens.



scienice predicts that in the year 3000 humans will be on avg over 6 ft tall, have a life expectancy of 120, and there will probabably not be nearly as many seperate races as we have now, as nter racial mariage will have merged the gene pool

You agreed that homo sapiens have been around for around 200,000 years. How much has changed in those 200,000 years? Hardly anything. Homo sapiens back then, were the same as homo sapiens now.

It's a pointless prediction. It's a guess.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
Homo habilis, hom erectus, homo neaderthalis, ARE the fossil changes leading up to homo sampiens.

Where are the fossils inbetween these different homo x's?

You claim a continuous, slow, evolutionary change.

Yet, you also claim a discrete case of fossils, with quantifiable measures of change.

Which is it? Discrete change, or continuous change? You can't have both. The fossil record doesn't support continous change, as the ONLY homo sapien fossils are discretely homo sapien.

Anyway, I'm not rehashing this all over. It's bordering off topic and I don't want to annoy the Moderators.

You don't have a clue why the starchild skull is what it is. You do a great job of writing like you know more than you do though.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



Homom sapiens came about through evolutionary change from the previous.

Your missing the point here. We are all HOMO. The different changes are reflected by the subset, Homo hablis, homo erectus, etc etc


Those ARE the changes, that lead up to us, as modern humans.

these small changes happen overtime, so that after a long period of time, when one has changed so much, it has to be eclassified all together, and then a new homo subset is born
so for instance after homo habilis had changed so much over time, the next classification arose and so forth, until us, homo sapiens.
they dont create a new c;assification with eacn and every change that comes about, it is only after a species as changed so much that this becomes necessary, hense why homo habilis is homo habilis until such changes ocur and so numerous that reclassification of the fossils is necsssary, so you could get 100s of homo habilis fossils each having utra minor changes but over time they add up resulting in a need to create a new subset

[edit on 10-12-2008 by NavalFC]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by Mozzy
 


It doesnt work this way! A little something called Speciation prevents this! Its the same reason you could NOT have a hamster fertilize a giraffe and get a Ham-raffe.


Naval FC, dude you just made my day.

Ham-raffe...that just kills me, thanks for the laugh, and presenting some evidence that a few people on this thread have DNA with common sense. Cheers.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 






Mission accomplished



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join