Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] First Human Embryos Edited in U.S.

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
I am certainly out to lunch when you start going into all this detail...

However, if it is identical in humans and other apes..... how do you know?

It's been sequenced for both species. Identical down to the individual atoms and structural orientation. You can't tell the difference.

My question is "what exactly do you think makes humans and gorillas (for example) essentially different?" If the gorilla gene is identical to the human gene, and a human is somehow given the gorilla gene, is he no longer human? And why do you think so or not think so?

I get that the question assumes some understanding that an average person with a decent education might not have. But I think it's an essential question for the point you raised.
 
Binding a skull does not:
1/ cause the skull to have an larger volume

How do you know? Compression of tissue tends to make it add cells. I see claims, but no data. So I'm skeptical.

2/ cause the skull to have totally different suture marks

They don't. The same sutures exist. Many of the skulls exhibit what anatomists call sagittal synostosis, a condition where the two parietal bones prematurely fuse from pressure. It's commonly found in other examples of skull binding. And all the other bones that are not intentionally distorted are, from all the pictures available, entirely human. It would be astonishing if an alien race happened to have exactly the same bones in the skull as humans.

3/ change the position of the entrance of the spinal column into the base of the skull.

So your argument is that binding can change the frontal and parietal bones, but not the occipital? Ask yourself why the foramen magnum is so far forward in humans, relative to apes, and then think about the way binding changes the distribution of weight in the skull. You'll have your answer.

4/ happen so fast that you can have an infant with a very large elongated skull.

How could that happen?

9696.jpg


The people bound the skulls of their infants as a method of imitation. They wanted their kids to look like a race of larger, more intelligent and more powerful beings.

Here, this is assuming what what was proposed to prove.

I know that I am fascinated with the unknown and unexplained.

Me too. The discovery of a third subspecies of recent H. sapiens was an amazing thing. Turns out Denesovans, like Neandertals, have left their genes with our own subspecies. Tibetan genes for high altitude adaptation seem to have been Denesovan. And unlike the long skull stories, this one actually happened.

However, some people are unaccepting of things unless they are presented by the "professionals" of certain fields.

Knowing what one is talking about is a big advantage, yes. For example, your guy is stunned by two holes at the top of some of these skulls. He assumes that they aren't human. Anatomists call them "parietal emissary foramina", and they are a normal variation in human skulls.

It is sad due to the fact that this is not always the truth and there are ulterior motives in place. What atheistic evolutionist is going to present any find.... if it contradicts the evolutionary model?

As for the skulls.....These cannot be human, based on the one simple fact that ALL human skulls have a distinctive pattern of sutures where the bones grow and come together...every human skull is identical in this respect.

No.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/craniosynostosis/symptoms-causes/dxc-20256926

Premature fusing of bones can obliterate sutures, and pressure is one way it can happen. However, these skulls clearly show two parietal bones, in areas where they were not bound.

Just as we all have a tibia and fibula in our legs, ulna and radius in our arms, four chambers to our heart and the same number of vertebra in our spine. [/quote]

No. For example, there are many people who happen to lack the last few vertebrae. Coccygeal agenesis usually has no symptoms at all, since the coccyx is vestigial; people with this condition normally never know it, unless an X-ray happens to illustrate the fact. Some people even do fine without a portion of their sacrum.

It is a characteristic of the human body.

No, not always.

These skulls are totally devoid of certain suture seams. They are of a totally different being, or hybrid.

Nope. As you see, it's merely premature fusion of sutures. And it's not remarkable, given the binding that would cause it to happen.

Well I may have it wrong. It may have been Stalin. However, they attempted to breed these hybrids for shear strength. It was a true event and it is documented.

Well, it was more for endurance and athleticism than mere strength. But as you know, modern evolutionary theory shows that such attempts are impractical, due to the many generations of selective breeding required.

I am certainly out to lunch when you start going into all this detail...

However, if it is identical in humans and other apes..... how do you know?

Both have been sequenced. Identical, right down to the individual atoms and structural orientation.

There are lots of gene traits, in other organisms, that are similar to humans, are there not?

We're talking identical, not similar. Outside of the primates, I don't think we have any large molecules that are identical. But it's possible. I would expect that if it is, it would be in a highly conserved function like cytochrome C or neurotransmitters.

(Edit) Often, a molecule will be somewhat different in different species, but still works fine between species. This is because much of the molecule is merely "spacers" to make it the right size and shape. So long as the active site is identical, it will still work between species.

Think of a key to a lock. The part that goes into the lock has to be identical, but it doesn't matter at all what the end you hold is like.

I think what we are talking about here is a genetic hybridization that would cause the DNA to be "unhuman". I don't know at what level or to what extent this would be...

So you're leaning to the idea that this particular gorilla gene, if inserted into a human genome, would not make the recipient "not human?"

I have heard that the DNA of the nephilim may have been a quadrahelix instead of double helix......

It wouldn't work with any purines or pyrimidines we know about. Unzipping would be impossible, so the molecule wouldn't function at all.
 
Last edited:
It's been sequenced for both species. Identical down to the individual atoms and structural orientation. You can't tell the difference.

My question is "what exactly do you think makes humans and gorillas (for example) essentially different?" If the gorilla gene is identical to the human gene, and a human is somehow given the gorilla gene, is he no longer human? And why do you think so or not think so?

I get that the question assumes some understanding that an average person with a decent education might not have. But I think it's an essential question for the point you raised.
My question is "How can the gorilla gene be identical to the human gene?"

There has to be a difference or we would be the same creature. No?
 
My question is "How can the gorilla gene be identical to the human gene?"

There has to be a difference or we would be the same creature. No?
We share a lot of common genetic material across species even down the bacterium level. God did not find it necessary to create totally new & unrelated genetic material for each species since most species have at least some related body functions.
 
How do you know? Compression of tissue tends to make it add cells. I see claims, but no data. So I'm skeptical.



They don't. The same sutures exist. Many of the skulls exhibit what anatomists call sagittal synostosis, a condition where the two parietal bones prematurely fuse from pressure. It's commonly found in other examples of skull binding. And all the other bones that are not intentionally distorted are, from all the pictures available, entirely human. It would be astonishing if an alien race happened to have exactly the same bones in the skull as humans.



So your argument is that binding can change the frontal and parietal bones, but not the occipital? Ask yourself why the foramen magnum is so far forward in humans, relative to apes, and then think about the way binding changes the distribution of weight in the skull. You'll have your answer.



How could that happen?

9696.jpg




Here, this is assuming what what was proposed to prove.



Me too. The discovery of a third subspecies of recent H. sapiens was an amazing thing. Turns out Denesovans, like Neandertals, have left their genes with our own subspecies. Tibetan genes for high altitude adaptation seem to have been Denesovan. And unlike the long skull stories, this one actually happened.



Knowing what one is talking about is a big advantage, yes. For example, your guy is stunned by two holes at the top of some of these skulls. He assumes that they aren't human. Anatomists call them "parietal emissary foramina", and they are a normal variation in human skulls.



No.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/craniosynostosis/symptoms-causes/dxc-20256926

Premature fusing of bones can obliterate sutures, and pressure is one way it can happen. However, these skulls clearly show two parietal bones, in areas where they were not bound.

Just as we all have a tibia and fibula in our legs, ulna and radius in our arms, four chambers to our heart and the same number of vertebra in our spine.

No. For example, there are many people who happen to lack the last few vertebrae. Coccygeal agenesis usually has no symptoms at all, since the coccyx is vestigial; people with this condition normally never know it, unless an X-ray happens to illustrate the fact. Some people even do fine without a portion of their sacrum.



No, not always.



Nope. As you see, it's merely premature fusion of sutures. And it's not remarkable, given the binding that would cause it to happen.



Well, it was more for endurance and athleticism than mere strength. But as you know, modern evolutionary theory shows that such attempts are impractical, due to the many generations of selective breeding required.



Both have been sequenced. Identical, right down to the individual atoms and structural orientation.



We're talking identical, not similar. Outside of the primates, I don't think we have any large molecules that are identical. But it's possible. I would expect that if it is, it would be in a highly conserved function like cytochrome C or neurotransmitters.

(Edit) Often, a molecule will be somewhat different in different species, but still works fine between species. This is because much of the molecule is merely "spacers" to make it the right size and shape. So long as the active site is identical, it will still work between species.

Think of a key to a lock. The part that goes into the lock has to be identical, but it doesn't matter at all what the end you hold is like.



So you're leaning to the idea that this particular gorilla gene, if inserted into a human genome, would not make the recipient "not human?"



It wouldn't work with any purines or pyrimidines we know about. Unzipping would be impossible, so the molecule wouldn't function at all.
I know you are having a hard time with this.

However, a few skulls that are anomalies in proven human skulls is not the same as a race of beings with radically different sutures and fontanels. As you can see in the pictures below... they are not just a bit different... they are radically different. The skull volume is up to 1/3 larger... even if you could account for, what you theorize as "Compression of tissue tends to make it add cells". I cannot believe it would add 1/3 to the total volume. My argument was not that "binding can change the frontal and parietal bones, but not the occipital". I said absolutely nothing in regards to what physical deformation was manifested in binding. I stated that the sutures would not change to what is exhibited in the giant skulls and that the volume could not be increased, especially to an additional 1/3. I also stated that the area where the spinal column enters or joins to the skull was much further to the rear of the skull and this, according to the expert that was giving the presentation, is not possible with binding of a human skull and would result in the being having a much different posture than humans or a longer neck, in order to maintain balance.
fontanel.jpeg


images
 
We share a lot of common genetic material across species even down the bacterium level. God did not find it necessary to create totally new & unrelated genetic material for each species since most species have at least some related body functions.
I understand that. Would this not result in similar chains and portions of Genetic code for all organisms.... And, would this not mean that it only takes small differences in certain areas that would dictate totally different organisms.

In the end... it is still possible to do a DNA investigation and deem that, from the results, this is not a human creature?
 
Would this not result in similar chains and portions of Genetic code for all organisms.... And, would this not mean that it only takes small differences in certain areas that would dictate totally different organisms.
Only very broadly; as you climb the taxonomic hierarchy you would find less genetic similarities when comparing say mammals to arthropods or the plant phylum to the fungi phylum. I expect much of that would likely be due to increased complexity of an organism.
In the end... it is still possible to do a DNA investigation and deem that, from the results, this is not a human creature?
To the best of my knowledge there are markers that are unique to humans.....so yes (until someone discovers otherwise).
 
Uhm, so those who use stem cells from their sister and it cures their disease are dammed forever and the cross can't save them?

You can donate adult stem cells and we'll if it's a marrow that it grew into ,well the original dna is in your body of the donor. Certain cells have dna produced by the marrow. Blood cells are made from other cells,usually white blood cells.

No, don't jump to conclusions Brother. There is a lot of medical and treatments and medications that do a lot of good and help ease peoples suffering. That's not the mark of the beast, that is real health care. The mark of the beast is something new which hasn't been released yet.

Nothing but nothing is ever going to be done to my hands or my forehead. No implants, tattoos or anything. We do know it's something that is going to go on the hand or forehead, so whatever form it turns out to be isn't as important as you want to do what, to WHERE? Lol
 
The way I understand it is.... as long as it is human to human... blood, organ, stem cell.... plasma... whatever... you are golden.

The problem is when you are mingled with animal or alien (aliens are not from other planets but are demons and from the spirit dimension).

It is the hybridization that disqualifies you. This is because you become a being that is not "fully human".
This hybridization, from what I understand, would also not be like a single part but something that alters your DNA.

Exactly how I understand it. Did you see Dr. Roger Leir's vids on Youtube? The who removed some alien implants from abductee's? said it was altering their DNA.
 
I know you are having a hard time with this.

I'm just showing you the errors in his assumptions.

However, a few skulls that are anomalies in proven human skulls is not the same as a race of beings with radically different sutures and fontanels. As you can see in the pictures below... they are not just a bit different... they are radically different.

The picture is too fuzzy to see what is there. However, there are clearer photos. Here's one from the Paracas site:
paracas-top.jpg

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/ancient-humans-of-paracas-are-victims-of-a-twisted-tale/

Notice that the sutures, although greatly distorted by binding, clearly shows two parietial bones, and the occipital bone as in normal humans.

The skull volume is up to 1/3 larger...

The average, even in the greatly distorted skulls, is about 1600 cc. The average for humans is about 1300 cc. So the average for the Paraca skulls is well within normal human variation.

even if you could account for, what you theorize as "Compression of tissue tends to make it add cells". I cannot believe it would add 1/3 to the total volume. My argument was not that "binding can change the frontal and parietal bones, but not the occipital". I said absolutely nothing in regards to what physical deformation was manifested in binding. I stated that the sutures would not change to what is exhibited in the giant skulls and that the volume could not be increased,

As you see, they aren't "giant." The are within normal variation in humans, which is about 950-1800 cc.

I also stated that the area where the spinal column enters or joins to the skull was much further to the rear of the skull and this, according to the expert that was giving the presentation, is not possible with binding of a human skull and would result in the being having a much different posture than humans or a longer neck, in order to maintain balance.

The foramen magnum in humans is positioned to balance the skull on the spine. It's forward,because the mass of the skull is forward. With the distorted skulls in the Paraca site, the mass of the skull is moved rearward, and the foramen magnum is also farther to the rear, which is exactly what you'd expect. Osteocyblasts and osteoclasts work by remodeling bone to handle stress. The foramen magnum was repositioned to the rear, to deal with that binding.
 
My question is "How can the gorilla gene be identical to the human gene?"

Because it's precisely the same sequence of bases. It's the identical code.

Table 2-1 A Comparison of the Number of Amino Acid Differences in Cytochrome c. (Margoliash, 1967)

Organism Cytochrome c (# Amino Acids Differing from Human)
Human -
Chimpanzee -
Rhesus monkey 1
Rabbit 9
Pig 10
Dog 10
Horse 12
Penguin 11
Moth 24
Yeast 38
Cytochrome c is a common protein in most higher organisms and is used as the basis of amino acid similarity, indicative of the genetic separation between the noted organisms. Cytochrome c, is a respiratory pigment found in mitochondria of eukaryotes. Cytochrome c has changed very slowly during evolution. The amino acid sequence between humans and chimpanzees are identical while between the rhesus monkey, there is a difference of one amino acid in comparison. This table shows that the amino acid sequence compared from humans are more closely related to chimpanzees

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~jcthomas/JCTHOMAS/Student Papers 1996/A.Aslam.html

It should be noted that while all great apes, including humans, have the same cytochrome C genes, there is one amino acid difference between human and gorilla hemoglobin in the alpha and beta chains. There is no difference however, between chimps and humans in that regard.

There has to be a difference or we would be the same creature. No?

There are other differences. Myostatin, for example. It's why we are much weaker physically than other apes. There are a few people who have mutations of this gene that inactivate it, and those with a single copy of the gene are markedly stronger than normal. There is one known person who has two copies of the mutated gene, and while still young, is very, very much stronger than normal.
 
Exactly how I understand it. Did you see Dr. Roger Leir's vids on Youtube? The who removed some alien implants from abductee's? said it was altering their DNA.
No, but I will search that one out.

Some people, who are very knowledgeable about this time and the science around it, believe that the mark of the beast will be a DNA altering event for each individual who accepts it and it will give them pseudo immortality. This would be why they would cry for death but death would not come.

Also, this would make them to be as it was in the days of Noah where the people were not "pure in their generations" They would, in fact be hybrids with the aliens.... demons, or DNA from a Nephilim hybrid that is one of the many that have been exhumed. Maybe, as some believe, even Nimrod. Thus.... salvation would be impossible as salvation is only for humans.
 
I'm just showing you the errors in his assumptions.



The picture is too fuzzy to see what is there. However, there are clearer photos. Here's one from the Paracas site:
paracas-top.jpg

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/ancient-humans-of-paracas-are-victims-of-a-twisted-tale/

Notice that the sutures, although greatly distorted by binding, clearly shows two parietial bones, and the occipital bone as in normal humans.



The average, even in the greatly distorted skulls, is about 1600 cc. The average for humans is about 1300 cc. So the average for the Paraca skulls is well within normal human variation.



As you see, they aren't "giant." The are within normal variation in humans, which is about 950-1800 cc.



The foramen magnum in humans is positioned to balance the skull on the spine. It's forward,because the mass of the skull is forward. With the distorted skulls in the Paraca site, the mass of the skull is moved rearward, and the foramen magnum is also farther to the rear, which is exactly what you'd expect. Osteocyblasts and osteoclasts work by remodeling bone to handle stress. The foramen magnum was repositioned to the rear, to deal with that binding.
The picture is not at all "fuzzy" unless you just don't want to see it. These skulls are not even close to having the suture lines of the fontanels of a human skull.

If you want other examples, use google. It is accepted by doctors who have examined the skulls that they are not human, lack the traits that every human skull.

The size could not be created by binding.

The location of the point of entry of the spinal column could also not be deviated to the places that these skulls have.

Conclusion:

Not human.
Very large,
So old that they blow evolution out of the water.
Timeline places them around the time of the great, unexplainable structures that exist in the areas where they are found. Places where structures are built with techniques that were impossible to complete with rock hammers and copper chisels. Perfectly round holes in rock that is 7 on the Mohs Hardness scale. Perfectly square cuts in the side of rocks, blocks many of tons in weight that are 100's of miles from their quarry and far above the treeline, other stones of polygonal shapes that fit together so tight that even today a human hair cannot fit between them, other stone structures where the stones are cut to such precision that they sit perfectly flat, stacked without any space between them and no mortar while being many tonnes in weight.

The list goes on. There were at a point in history, very large, intelligent and technologically advanced beings that lived all over this globe. Long before evolution would place them here.
 
This is way off topic guys......if you want to discuss aliens please start another thread.......

Yep. So I'm still waiting for an answer. The Gorilla (or chimp or organutan) gene for cytochrome C is identical to the human gene for that enzyme, right down to the individual atoms and dimensional structure.

If it was inserted in a human genome, would that individual no longer be fully human?

Anyone?
 
No, but I will search that one out.

Some people, who are very knowledgeable about this time and the science around it, believe that the mark of the beast will be a DNA altering event for each individual who accepts it and it will give them pseudo immortality. This would be why they would cry for death but death would not come.

Also, this would make them to be as it was in the days of Noah where the people were not "pure in their generations" They would, in fact be hybrids with the aliens.... demons, or DNA from a Nephilim hybrid that is one of the many that have been exhumed. Maybe, as some believe, even Nimrod. Thus.... salvation would be impossible as salvation is only for humans.

That's exactly right Brother, as I understand it too.

Now that I think about it, it was on L.A. Marzulli's The Watchers videos. I'm not sure which one, there are six in the series and He interviews Roger Leir about the alien implants and asked him what are they for? What do the implants do? and the good doctor says...uhh it's changing their DNA.
 
Oh yeah, it's all over Youtube. I just searched for Dr. Roger leir and a bunch came up. Here's one. I haven't watched this one, but I bet the info is in here about changing the DNA, because that's what he said before in a video.

 
Yep. So I'm still waiting for an answer. The Gorilla (or chimp or organutan) gene for cytochrome C is identical to the human gene for that enzyme, right down to the individual atoms and dimensional structure.

If it was inserted in a human genome, would that individual no longer be fully human?

Anyone?
Uh.... maybe ask a university professor.

Are you saying that the DNA of a Gorilla and that of a Human, over all, are indistinguishable from each other? Seriously?

Are you saying that the DNA of these skulls will have no ability to determine that they are, in fact, not human....or human hybrids with another being?

I always thought that DNA could distinguish between two different humans in such a way that it is applicable in a court of law... Yet, you are telling me that Gorilla DNA and Human DNA is identical...???

I think you are using your genetic nomenclature and detail to muddy the water...

Kinda like when someone doesn't really have a response without admitting that they are wrong, and cannot defend their point so they post some elaborate math problem....

I get it.... you have education in genetics....it impresses me not.

Science can look at the DNA of an organism and compare it to beings of the same family, or whatever, and they can determine that it is "abnormal" for that "kind", "species", "family", "genius", or whatever nomenclature for the terminology of genetic and DNA studies that you want to use.
 
The first known attempt at creating genetically modified human embryos in the United States has been carried out by a team of researchers in Portland, Oregon, MIT Technology Review has learned.

The effort, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, involved changing the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos with the gene-editing technique CRISPR, according to people familiar with the scientific results.

Until now, American scientists have watched with a combination of awe, envy, and some alarm as scientists elsewhere were first to explore the controversial practice. To date, three previous reports of editing human embryos were all published by scientists in China.

Now Mitalipov is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608350/first-human-embryos-edited-in-us/

Where do you stand on this issue?
Is it a force for good allowing the cure of genetically transmitted illnesses and improving the quality of life for man?
Or....
Is it a force for evil as in......
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=03fb8ad298258c297c9902b57b3e5e69&action=view
Anything man does could be used for both good and evil.
In this case, it's very scary.
Brave New World.
Here we come.
Humans as product.
Great.
 
Back
Top