Skull discovery sheds light on human species

reply to post by ZakOlongapo


I don't know what you're trying to say.

reply to post by SpearMint


There are 223 genes in the human DNA code that are not found in any other living organisms studied. In other words, it appears we did not inherit this package of genes from any other form of life on this planet.

human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree...

97% non-coding sequences in human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms

atc... google it

ZakOlongapo
reply to post by SpearMint

 

There are 223 genes in the human DNA code that are not found in any other living organisms studied. In other words, it appears we did not inherit this package of genes from any other form of life on this planet.

human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree...

97% non-coding sequences in human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms

atc... google it

I'm sorry . . . You are relying on Zacharia Sitchin, a person with an degree in economics and worked in shipping, for your information on the human genome? Really? The same guy that totally mistranslated the Enuma Elish and made up a fantastical tale of ancient aliens? You know you can go to a great many sites and read the actual translation Enuma Elish from linguistic scholars and it is nothing like Sitchin claims, right? You know he did nothing, but literalize myth and assume their artwork was a hieroglyphic language, right?

Or did you get that information from the actual source that Sitchin uses . . . a religious book (not genetics) by Morn du Toit. A book called "Blind Faith" . . . it's on page 34 . . . if you want to "Google" it.

Let us have a quick look at this third theory, just for the sake of interest and to be ... What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life! ... Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process – how more complex ... was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required ...

You do know that genetics/evolution does not work in a strait-line progression, like this book claims, right? Humans are only the "pinnacle" or "apex", with all life working toward that to the religious . . . that is not what science has found or believes. It's a fallacy.

Can you show any work by a geneticist that claims this, the 223 genes and "star child" mumbo-jumbo? Can you show ANY source that doesn't have to do with the Annunaki or come from a religious forum?

Maybe you should Google it?

I'll save you the trouble . . . it's just more pseudo-science that has no basis in fact.

reply to post by solomons path


just for the sake of interest.... Zecharia Sitchin made sense for me i can deal with it.

ZakOlongapo
reply to post by solomons path

 

just for the sake of interest.... Zecharia Sitchin made sense for me

i can deal with it.

So then, your whole argument rests on a fictitious tale and made up facts about genetics . . . yet, paleontologists and anthropologists are wrong because it goes against a work of pure fiction?

Hey, at least you can admit to living in a word based on lies and devoid of reality. As long as it makes sense, right?

And I'm assuming by your response, despite your presenting lies as fact and a defiant claim to "Google it", you cannot back up said claim on the human genome?

Why is it that those (and not just you, but all) that cannot deal with the fact of evolution and the evidence to back it have to resort to made up versions of reality to promote their "designer"? If design was correct, shouldn't there be evidence that is based in fact to back it?

reply to post by ZakOlongapo

... i do agree with part of your statement "fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works"

Good, because it's clear that the vast majority of people arguing against evolution here are constructing their own straw man to argue against that bears little to no resemblance to the actual theory of evolution.

cos evolution is just THE THEORY! so what do U want to understand here?

Been a while since I've see the old "just a theory" argument around here. At least a day or two! We've now moved outside of a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution and into a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works.

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Do you now understand what "theory" means when used in a scientific context?

i have theory to.
if NO GOD, if no ET then my theory go to mushrooms...
one day, long long time a go some "HOMO" MONKEY eat a lot of mushrooms with all the family... (party night)
then booooom, the very next day they all find out they are change. They mutated over night to HOMO SAPIENS... and start give them selfs names... like ADAM or EVE or what ever U like ...
good day to all

At best, this is a hypothesis, not a theory. Do you have some kind of evidence to support your hypothesis?

solomons path

ZakOlongapo
reply to post by solomons path

 

just for the sake of interest.... Zecharia Sitchin made sense for me

i can deal with it.

So then, your whole argument rests on a fictitious tale and made up facts about genetics . . . yet, paleontologists and anthropologists are wrong because it goes against a work of pure fiction?

Hey, at least you can admit to living in a word based on lies and devoid of reality. As long as it makes sense, right?

And I'm assuming by your response, despite your presenting lies as fact and a defiant claim to "Google it", you cannot back up said claim on the human genome?

Why is it that those (and not just you, but all) that cannot deal with the fact of evolution and the evidence to back it have to resort to made up versions of reality to promote their "designer"? If design was correct, shouldn't there be evidence that is based in fact to back it?

Proving anything is really really really hard, let alone finding some almost 2 millions years old bones and make conclusions and present it as fact, they had anything to do with modern humans.
It's for the most part guesswork.

All I know we have had Dino's living on this planet for 180 million years!!! (or at least according our dating ''science''), what an evolution we saw during those 180 million years! they almost went human, with their science and great achievements.

All I know something happens, then it's gone, then something new comes. Not really something new.
Those dino's where a prime test for muscles and bones (my belief). All those testings are stored even in our muscles and bones today and all other species living in present day.

Why or how, nobody knows. If you are dead, what do you know, nothing, you are even forgotten but everything (or at least it seems) is memory, based on an older experience but you need something new, really new, not a copy from a copy from a copy (and so on). Like a computer program, when you keep on making a copy, it's gets worse and weaker.

But then, voila a new specie, not really new (based on older memory) but all fresh, all new coded but how or when, basicly nobody knows, but it's there until the time is there for something new. Nobody seen it happening or know or when though.

So when something big happens in the future and we are all gone, will we be starting as some fish crawling on land and evolve (again?) or will we see new species based on olders ones, a bit the same (from past memory) but just better/improved (but again all new coded).
Things really start over again for nothing???

There must be a big erase button but with an old backup program (so you don't have to start from scratch) running there somewhere when making something new (but not all is new, based on old memory but new code nevertheless).

reply to post by ZakOlongapo

97% non-coding sequences in human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms

I smell Sitchin.

So you have the genome of an extraterrestrial to compare to ours to support your claim that it is the "enetic code of extraterrestrial life forms".

reply to post by Plugin


Thank you for showing all in this thread that you know absolutely nothing about Evolutionary Theory.

All I know we have had Dino's living on this planet for 180 million years!!! (or at least according our dating ''science''), what an evolution we saw during those 180 million years! K they almost went human, with their science and great achievements. w

Your whole argument rests on ignorance and you had to create a straw man to drive it home? Evolution doesn't work toward any goal, let alone intelligence, so what does the amount of time dinosaurs existed prove? And to aid your lack of understanding, you have to use cartoon emoticons as if you actually made a valid point? The only goal life has is to survive . . . evolution is the mechanism it uses to survive.

So when something big happens in the future and we are all gone, will we be starting as some fish crawling on land and evolve (again?) or will we see new species based on olders ones, a bit the same but just better/improved?
Things really start over again for nothing???

Why would you assume it starts all over . . . there have been mass extinctions in the past and life didn't "start all over". Mainly, because not all life was wiped out. If something happened on Earth that wiped all life out (say it lost it's atmosphere) then it would just end . . . Earth would probably look kind of like Mars.

There must be a big erase button but with an old backup program (so you don't have to start from scratch) running there somewhere.

Wishing something doesn't make it so . . . Congratulation on your complete lack of understanding about evolution, and life in general.

ZakOlongapo
reply to post by SpearMint

 

There are 223 genes in the human DNA code that are not found in any other living organisms studied. In other words, it appears we did not inherit this package of genes from any other form of life on this planet.

human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree...

97% non-coding sequences in human DNA is no less than genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms

atc... google it

I was curious and googled this. Below is a screenshot from the same site:




Is this what you meant? Check this

solomons path
reply to post by Plugin

 

Your whole argument rests on ignorance and you had to create a straw man to drive it home? Evolution doesn't work toward any goal, let alone intelligence, so what does the amount of time dinosaurs existed prove? And to aid your lack of understanding, you have to use cartoon emoticons as if you actually made a valid point? The only goal life has is to survive . . . evolution is the mechanism it uses to survive.

My point is only there is basicly no proof, only a few bones. 180 million years, and when we find some dino remains, it's something really really special. 180 million years, how many dino's have existed on this planet in 180 million of years?
The whole earth must have made from bones almost.

Why would you assume it starts all over . . . there have been mass extinctions in the past and life didn't "start all over". Mainly, because not all life was wiped out. If something happened on Earth that wiped all life out (say it lost it's atmosphere) then it would just end . . . Earth would probably look kind of like Mars.

I don't assume, as I said everything is memory. Based on older memories, but I don't know how it really works but all I know even when something new comes it's ''new'' but from old memory but better.
Just when you write a new program where you have experience from the old code you made but still it's something new.

Wishing something doesn't make it so . . . Congratulation on your complete lack of understanding about evolution, and life in general.

Congratulations on thinking you know anything about evolution.

reply to post by Plugin


Would like to compare our knowledge on the field of Evolutionary Theory?

You seem to be the only one that doesn't understand it, between the two of us.

Evolution is not a "computer program" . . . false analogy that shows just how much you don't understand about Evolutionary Theory.

Your gibberish about how long dinos existed and your comments about "the earth being made of bones" shows you have little to no knowledge about Geology, Plate Tectonics, or Paleontology. Fossils are actually stone/mineral, btw, not "bone".

And, could you show me some citation or source that supports your claim about "everything being memory" . . . memory resides in the mind. Maybe you are referring to gene expression in a changing environment (say domestic pig to feral hog)? I'm not sure, but it makes no sense where this find, dinos, or the evolutionary tract of hominids is concerned.

reply to post by Plugin


Plug,

fossils are devided into 2 groups

* trace fossils
* body fossils

Trace fossil are for example fossils made in stone by imprint of specie body/body part. Not everything gets fossilized, only small portion of organism gets fossilized, mostly the one that get mineralized during life time, such as bone and teeth.

Most of those fossils that you are wondering about (dino, vegetation etc.) we today use as fuel, thus name - fossil fuel. As I have already said - only small portion of deceased organisms get fossilized...

This is just small basic overview of something you should have learned in school... I am sure if you interested, you can find much more on internet.

solomons path
reply to post by Plugin

 

Would like to compare our knowledge on the field of Evolutionary Theory?

You seem to be the only one that doesn't understand it, between the two of us.

Evolution is not a "computer program" . . . false analogy that shows just how much you don't understand about Evolutionary Theory.

Your gibberish about how long dinos existed and your comments about "the earth being made of bones" shows you have little to no knowledge about Geology, Plate Tectonics, or Paleontology. Fossils are actually stone/mineral, btw, not "bone".

And, could you show me some citation or source that supports your claim about "everything being memory" . . . memory resides in the mind. Maybe you are referring to gene expression in a changing environment (say domestic pig to feral hog)? I'm not sure, but it makes no sense where this find, dinos, or the evolutionary tract of hominids is concerned.

edit on 10/18/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

Who is 'our'? It's you and?

Of course I know it's stone, but hey they know how old stone is? you know they can't really date stone?
Nobody really exactly knows how memory works.
Even your skin got memory, with a wound it gets thicker and you always see it there you had this wound a long time ago. Or like when you work out allot your skin on your hand gets thicker and more tougher, so it can deal with the punishment the next time better, must have some kind of memory?
But wait that can't be, memory only exist in your brain, right?

reply to post by rhinoceros


no. it is this what i mean:
An interesting category is a set of 223 proteins that have significant similarity to proteins from bacteria, but no comparable similarity to proteins from yeast, worm, fly and mustard weed, or indeed from any other (nonvertebrate) eukaryote. These sequences should not represent bacterial contamination in the draft human sequence, because we filtered the sequence to eliminate sequences that were essentially identical to known bacterial plasmid, transposon or chromosomal DNA (such as the host strains for the large-insert clones). To investigate whether these were genuine human sequences......

biology.unm.edu...

reply to post by Plugin


What? The body doesn't heal itself through "memory". The body repairs damage to itself, in order to ensure survival/heath.

The healing of an adult skin wound is a complex process requiring the collaborative efforts of many different tissues and cell lineages. The behavior of each of the contributing cell types during the phases of proliferation, migration, matrix synthesis, and contraction, as well as the growth factor and matrix signals present at a wound site, are now roughly understood. Details of how these signals control wound cell activities are beginning to emerge, and studies of healing in embryos have begun to show how the normal adult repair process might be readjusted to make it less like patching up and more like regeneration.

Skin regenerates to close a wound, just as the entirety of your skin regenerates every day. Old cells are flaked off or rubbed away as new ones come to the surface. It has nothing to do with "memory".

Never mind facial masks and exfoliating scrubs, skin takes care of itself. Stem cells located within the skin actively generate differentiating cells that can ultimately form either the body surface or the hairs that emanate from it. In addition, these stem cells are able to replenish themselves, continually rejuvenating skin and hair. Now, researchers at Rockefeller University have identified two proteins that enable these skin stem cells to undertake this continuous process of self-renewal.

Skin renewal


With your notion that world is all some mystical unknown that can only be proven if "you are there to witness it", it must be a supernatural miracle that any criminals are caught . . . I mean how do the investigators "prove" anything if they are not "there to witness it"?

reply to post by ZakOlongapo

If you had kept going with your quote, you would have included a possible answer to your question of where they came from:

Orthologues of many of these genes have also been detected in other vertebrates

A more detailed computational analysis indicated that at least 113 of these genes are widespread among bacteria, but, among eukaryotes, appear to be present only in vertebrates. It is possible that the genes encoding these proteins were present in both early prokaryotes and eukaryotes, but were lost in each of the lineages of yeast, worm, fly, mustard weed and, possibly, from other nonvertebrate eukaryote lineages. A more parsimonious explanation is that these genes entered the vertebrate (or prevertebrate) lineage by horizontal transfer from bacteria. Many of these genes contain introns, which presumably were acquired after the putative horizontal transfer event. Similar observations indicating probable lineage-specific horizontal gene transfers, as well as intron insertion in the acquired genes, have been made in the worm genome.

See? No extraterrestrials needed.

reply to post by ZakOlongapo


You may want to add the rest of the section . . .

Orthologues of many of these genes have also been detected in other vertebrates (Table 24).

A more detailed computational analysis indicated that at least 113 of these genes are widespread among bacteria, but, among eukaryotes, appear to be present only in vertebrates. It is possible that the genes encoding these proteins were present in both early prokaryotes and eukaryotes, but were lost in each of the lineages of yeast, worm, fly, mustard weed and, possibly, from other nonvertebrate eukaryote lineages. A more parsimonious explanation is that these genes entered the vertebrate (or prevertebrate) lineage by horizontal transfer from bacteria. Many of these genes contain introns, which presumably were acquired after the putative horizontal transfer event. Similar observations indicating probable lineage-specific horizontal gene transfers, as well as intron insertion in the acquired genes, have been made in the worm genome329.

This doesn't back up anything Sitchin/Toit claim about aliens/gods.

What it points to bacteria altering the genome of early vertebrates. A far cry from your claim of:

There are 223 genes in the human DNA code that are not found in any other living organisms studied. In other words, it appears we did not inherit this package of genes from any other form of life on this planet

ETA - Iteration beat me to the punch . . .

reply to post by SuperFrog


How do they know it is that old exactly... Assumption...
Why are they saying it is human when it is just another ape or Chimpanzee.... Like Lucy was, and countless other frauds putting apes bones and human bones together.

I mean please, the evolutionist are just pathetic in their attempts over and over again to justify a bankrupt 100+ year old fairy tale dreamed up by Darwin and/or his daddy.

reply to post by solomons path


... i read this in there:
223 proteins that have "significant similarity" to proteins from bacteria....

means for dummies, that they (and you) have no clue where those proteins come from

common, it is all in english