|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Sorry, no catalog!
Items found on this web site are NOT Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization, resident within the United States.
|
Human Anomalies to Support Interventionby Patty Boyer There are those that are always trying to promote the evolutionary theory concerning the development of humans. And on the other side of the coin are those supporting the Creationist theory. If I had to choose between them, I would have to go with the creationist theory but not because I think that a divine being stirred up a bunch of mud, formed a human body and called it human. But what I do believe is that humans are a product of genetic manipulation. There are several anomalies involving humans that can support this idea. In this article I will attempt to present some of the anomalies. I will not attempt to prove the theory. If scientist can't prove that humans evolved or were created, I certainly cannot. In my previous article I talked about blood types, specifically the RH-negative factor. The rh-negative blood types are present in only humans. Of the human blood types, O, A, B and AB, it is suggested that O types is the very oldest and is ancient by evolutionary standards…. Anthropological, biological, and genetic evidence all put the origin of humans at between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, probably in Africa. The latest studies on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) support the theory that Homo sapiens emerged in Africa and later migrated into other regions. O type probably appeared early at the appearance of one of our first direct ancestors, Cro-Magnon, around 40,000 B.C. in Africa, mid continent. However, the study of blood type distribution does not support that theory. The most reasonable theory, so far, is one that supposes that modern man first developed in central Asia if the mutations that produced the A and B antigens are ancient, the gene for blood group O is infinitely older. Blood group A initially appeared in any significant numbers in the early Caucasian peoples, sometime between 25,000 and 15,000 B.C., somewhere in western Asia or the Middle East. The gene for group A was carried into Western Europe and Asia during the movement of these Neolithic societies, especially a branch termed the Indo-Europeans. Unlike blood groups B and O, there are many varieties of group A. The major grouping, A1, accounts for about ninety-five percent of all A blood. The largest subgroup, A2, is found principally in Northern Caucasians. A2 is found in very high concentration in Iceland and Scandinavia, particularly among the Lapps, ancient settlers of the area. They are almost unique in their high frequency of A, and have the highest frequency of A2, registering forty-two percent in one group. The A2 gene is almost entirely confined to Caucasian populations. The European frequency of group A decreases as we head eastwards. Over much of Europe the frequency of the A gene is greater than twenty-five percent. It is also found in considerable numbers around the entire Mediterranean Sea, particularly in Corsica, Sardinia, Spain, Turkey, and the Balkans. It is clear that humankind most often laid down permanent settlements in those areas where conditions offered them the best chance of survival. Blood group A seems to be the last defined blood group to appear. It seems to originate in the Caucasian people and in an area described as the cradle of humanity. Could the blood type distribution be a clue to the origins of the most modern version of humans - Today’s humans? Beginning around 50,000 B.C. Agriculture and animal domestication are generally recognized as the hallmarks of a modern outburst of cultural human behavior. Archaeologists date the oldest evidence of burial ceremonies, body ornaments, and cave paintings in Europe and agricultural evidence starts to appear shortly afterwards. It is during a period of time lasting about 10,000 years that most of modern food crops and domesticated animals show up in the fossil records. Some with direct evolutionary connections but most without. At some point in the last 100,000 years, humans made a giant leap from the rest of the pack. A new human appeared which possessed a human genome with 223 genes that did not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree. Where did they come from? If you follow the evolution theory then you know that in the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates to vertebrates and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing from the invertebrate phase. In a recently evolutionary time, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes. Not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally as a sideways insertion of genetic material. The only natural way to gain this genetic material would be through bacterial insertion. Later, in this article, I will explain how this was very unlikely. Each gene in a string of DNA makes an impact on us. Every single gene makes a great difference to every individual human. To take a hominoid and introduce 223 NEW genes made an immense difference to a species to create humans. The human genome is made up of about 3 billion neucleotides. Just a little more than 1 percent of them are grouped into functioning genes. Each gene contains about 1000 neucleotides. The difference between you and I amounts to one neucleotides in 1000 or 1 gene. The difference between man and chimps is less than 1 percent as genes go: and 1 percent of 30,000 genes is 300. So 223 genes is more than 2/3 of the difference between humans and chimps. That’s a huge leap with no predecessors. But not so large with some outside intervention. The functions of these 223 genes were analyzed through the proteins that they contained. The analysis, conducted by the Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature, revealed that they contained proteins that are involved in important physiological and psychiatric functions. They were also responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA. The mitochondrial portion of the DNA that humans inherit ONLY through the mother line. That fact, alone, raises doubt regarding the bacterial insertion explanation. "It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories," said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine. "We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes," states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) "are widespread among bacteria" - though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans. "It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria," Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University's Genome Sequencing Center, as saying. But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with? How did we come to possess the unique extra genes? All animals and other living creatures known to man can breed with any other of their species. Relative size and color makes no difference. Why does infant's haemolytic disease occur in humans if all humans are the same species? Haemolytic disease is the allergic reaction that occurs when an Rh-negative mother is carrying an Rh-positive child. Her blood builds up poisonous antibodies to destroy an ALIEN substance (the same way it would a virus), thereby destroying the infant. Why would a mother's body reject her own offspring? Nowhere else in nature does this occur naturally. This same problem does occur in mules - a cross between a horse and donkey. This fact alone points to the distinct possibility of a crossbreeding between two similar but genetically different species. In conclusion of this article, I suggest that enough evidence exists to cause one to ponder on the real origins of humanity. Are we a natural result of evolution? Or was there some amount of intervention from an outside source. Many religious texts from around the world do suggest some type of creating was done. Could it have been genetic tampering by a highly technologically advanced race not from our Earth? You decide. |
You can place your order by using our on line shopping cart , or you can mail your order. _______ Shopping cart accepts MC, VISA
Send Checks or money orders by mail. _______ We offer a safe and secure transaction. _______ If you need help, please go to the help page.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
