Switch to full style
A forum for reviews and discussion of current events, TV, books & movies from a UB or spiritual perspective that relates to The Urantia Book.
Post a reply

Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:59 am +0000

There appear to be very distinct anatomical differences between even very recent Andite descendants and "homo sapiens sapiens".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBHEWrLc6aw

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:20 am +0000

since the blood types are human and current his theory that these are alien/nephilim (nodite not andite) seems to rest on abnormal cranial capacity and the missing suture and those are disputed and explained here:

The Elongated Skulls Mystery Really isn’t a Mystery at All

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:04 am +0000

The explanations in the site "Isn’t a Mystery at All" are in technical terms, arm chair hand-waving. There are rather many anomalies that clearly indicate something inexplicable had occurred. Most telling are the maternal and paternal haplotype results. Sure, Foerster doesn't know the difference between Adamites and Nodites. These days I don't think he claims anything in particular about that. Both genetics were present in the Andites in any event. But he is hot on the trail of something very important that is completely ignored by far less adventurous and inquisitive souls.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:20 pm +0000

i don't know what you mean by "arm chair hand-waving"...i know that references for the cranial capacity to be well within normal limits and the absence of the suture to be understood are given. if you can dispute them do it.

yeah i know my mention of the "nodites not andites" is incidental fyi, forget about it.

the blood types don't indicate anything other than homo sapiens sapiens to me...you can find the other native american blood types in the same areas of europe and western asia...in origin and in modern populations both. the highest percentage of o-positive is found in "incan" territory but also found in very high percentages elsewhere across the globe so maybe you could elaborate on what you find so unusual there.

blond and red hair is found in other native americans too and not indicative of andite ancestry.

hot on the trail of ignoring the heavy siberian presence on one of his maps to try and prop up the poorly constructed theory that the most recent examples of elongated heads from the farthest reach of human migration were aliens that apparently somehow gave rise to the elongated heads that appeared before and after that time in known human populations elsewhere. it doesnt add up and doesnt show the andite migration signature to me.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:40 pm +0000

oy

In summary, this is a non-story. There is nothing at all unusual about the population of the Paracas Necropolis Culture, apart from the extreme nature of the head-binding they practised. DNA or no DNA, they are fully human: every aspect of their skulls can be explained in terms of genetics (such as the large wormian bone) and culture (such as the cranial deformation). Any statements to the contrary contain a mixture of deliberate deception, ignorance of anthropology, lack of archaeological knowledge and jumping to wild conclusions using “sketchy” data. They are not evidence for aliens or an otherwise unknown hominin species.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:08 pm +0000

Well, I can understand if it is not especially exciting to everyone. Nowhere in the video (or elsewhere to my knowledge) does Foerster suggest the specimens are not homo sapiens. It's rather that some genetic element that is not homo sapiens sapiens (the sub-species) had been introduced and that that element almost certainly came from Eurasia, very likely close to the Black Sea. Both the maternal and paternal haplotypes present demonstrate that very clearly. One of the most interesting things is the correlation between unique characteristics for South American with those of Eurasia.

Yes, the blood types are very standard human ones. But as he points out, types that were present are not indigenous to the region. Type O, by the way, seems to be an aboriginal type that even Neanderthal carried. What seems to have clearly been introduced by the Andites is the negative rh factor. The blood tests that were done did not record that factor unfortunately.
Last edited by Riktare on Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:52 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:52 am +0000

well under that guideline i could tell you all about dozens of human blood types you've never heard of and claim it's evidence of aliens. the blood types you know are just the ones we keep track of because they're important for transfusions. rh negative blood is defined by a lack of an antigen, which doesn't indicate something new or alien being introduced at all....it's something taken away.

truth is known by its flavor. sometimes when you've got someone spouting bullshit for years like the cranial capacity and the missing suture the absence of truth is known by it's stench from a distance.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:04 am +0000

The point about the negative rh factor lacking an antigen is that it didn't occur in humans prior to about 35000 years ago. It's likely that without the protection that rh+ antigens give, very many, or most humans would have died from infections. Apparently some other unidentified protection was conferred by the Adamites. That information does not come from Foerster.

But why do you feel someone is claiming alien presence based on the occurrence of a blood type? That is not at all what was claimed in the video. Maybe you are mixing up a lot of strange material from other sources? The people involved in "Ancient Astronaut" type speculation do seem to cobble together material freely from any source and imply a connection. Maybe that is what you object to most of all. And I think you have missed the point that there are new and prominent deviations in cranial size, shape, proportion to body mass that occurred in infants that have NOT been examined and accounted for by publishing authors.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:57 am +0000

Riktare wrote:The point about the negative rh factor lacking an antigen is that it didn't occur in humans prior to about 35000 years ago. It's likely that without the protection that rh+ antigens give, very many, or most humans would have died from infections. Apparently some other unidentified protection was conferred by the Adamites. That information does not come from Foerster.

But why do you feel someone is claiming alien presence based on the occurrence of a blood type? That is not at all what was claimed in the video. Maybe you are mixing up a lot of strange material from other sources? The people involved in "Ancient Astronaut" type speculation do seem to cobble together material freely from any source and imply a connection. Maybe that is what you object to most of all. And I think you have missed the point that there are new and prominent deviations in cranial size, shape, proportion to body mass that occurred in infants that have NOT been examined and accounted for by publishing authors.



huh? you're trying to tell me that the lack of rhd in some people means that adamite blood contains some unknown protection???? how do you arrive at the conclusion???? i doubt there's any evidence that rhd- didnt occur till about 35000 years ago...if you have some then share it. highest percentage of rhd- is basque and its believed to be a result of heavier neanderthal or hunter/gatherer ancestry...not anatolian farmers (andite).

the clown in the video claims non-human mutations and it being either alien or a new human species...that's really irrelevant to debunking the claims though. and yeah this guy tends to grab onto anything remotely close and make specious claims...like making a big deal out of a painting of what might be a god having red hair when there's only three colors used in the painting lol.

uhm yeah i missed the point about "new and prominent deviations in cranial size, shape, proportion to body mass that occurred in infants that have NOT been examined and accounted for by published authors". apparently the info came from what and who then? word of mouth at the pseudoscience convention?

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:10 pm +0000

Regarding the possibility of rh negative blood in Neanderthals, you can do the research yourself. First, find the location of the SNP's that encode the rh factor in humans as well as the particular nucleotides that encode the possible variations determining the rh type. Check your results against several real examples.

Now look up those SNP's in the Neanderthal genomes that have been released to the public domain. If I remember correctly they are associated with the research that Svante Palbo led several years ago.

Naturally, there are complications to the research. If you run into problems I will be happy to help, though it has been several years since I investigated.

Of course one may not make a firm general supposition based on a limited sample. To do so is to fall into the trap of turning potentially valid research into pseudo-science (as you seem to be aware of the concept). However, such breaches are very, very much rampant in the day's supposed peer reviewed journals. So effectively, such research is only an initial indication. But it may be a telling one.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:48 pm +0000

uhm i didnt dispute rh negative in neanderthals...i indirectly affirmed that by mentioning the basques. i'm disputing that rh negative didn't appear until 35000 years ago at the tail end of neanderthal existence. and also disputing the notion that it, along with the rest of the "evidence" has anything to do with proof of anything abnormal in homo sapiens sapiens and/or any of it being a distinctly andite trait.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:09 pm +0000

That's fine. The problem is that no one seems to be doing the research that would answer the question of when and where rh negative blood arose. I see no instances of its existence in blood tests on samples earlier than 35000 years ago. There is a strong correlation between its occurrence in modern humans and the presence of certain maternal and paternal haplotypes that arose after that point in time. But I have found no studies that highlight that fact.

Why is that? Is the academic community so lacking in genuine inquisitiveness and false certainty of its current paradigms that it needs someone like Foerster to shake some new energy into it? Or rather stick its cowardly head into the sand still further like a frightened ostrich and resort to spreading disinformation rather than doing proper research?

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:53 pm +0000

yes i'm aware of the lack of research on ancient rh negative specimens but you claimed it didnt exist before 35000 and now its just "oldest i've seen" and you still won't produce the evidence i requested. sorry but if you're now trying to say that these "certain haplotypes that arose after that time" are the andites and you're trying to prove it by them having the neanderthals rh negative bloodtype then that obviously doesn't compute. and you will have a hard time correlating haplotype origin dates in current science with the history in the urantia papers anyway...they're missing something in the mutation rates when they attempt to calculate that...and perhaps more not understood.

your questions about the quality of science on the subject amount to arm chair hand waving when you dont even avail yourself of the quality research done on elongated skulls and pre-incan geneologies and the only evidence i've seen of someone spreading disinformation is you.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:56 am +0000

I guess you are quite confused on what I said and what I mean, which is quite okay so long as you think to ask instead of making poor assumptions. This forum really shouldn't be a bickering place where petty misunderstandings are the highlighted item. So I'll just give a few more hints and you can take them constructively or not.

Calculated mutation rates are only part of the consideration. The more recent arising haplotypes, especially the most potentially interesting ones, can often be anchored to arising within a short time window and small region based historical facts, tested anthropomorphic remains and other evidence.

Re: Distinct Andite anatomical differences

Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:18 am +0000

see now you could easily at least mention what haplotypes and regions you have in mind, or give a link to some study....but instead you give a "hint" and wonder why i get confused trying to follow your train of thought down the rabbit hole.
Post a reply