For Hannelle

Weeeelllll, we could start out with the observation that while in humans the sex-linked chromosomes are X and Y, one X provided by the mother and either an X or Y provided by the father, neither of those are present in reptiles and their sex-linked chromosomes, Z and W, come from exactly the opposite sex; the male always provides a W and the female provides either a Z or a W.

Specifically, "provides" here means that when the eggs are being formed in the female, the chromosomes split and either "Z" or "W" is incorporated into a particular egg while the other is expelled. When fertilized, the sperm only provides a W.

So if the reptile DNA came from a male, Purple would have to be a female. But since he isn't, that means he would have had to have been hatched. But since he has a bellybutton, that apparently didn't happen either. So if it didn't come from a male, and it didn't come from a female, then he can't have any, because it couldn't have come from anywhere. QED.

But perhaps I am being unduly simplistic in equating "reptoid DNA" with "a reptile parent" here. If you mail me more details on the exact alleged provenance of said DNA, I could address the scientific plausibility of said assertion in more detail.

-- Alex

(Reply to this)

(Reply to this)

But this leads into why I find this whole thing laughably untenable. For the reasons mentioned above direct parentage is a genetic impossiblity, making the genetic engineering technique above the only means to introduce the DNA. This leads to the questions as to why this would be of any advantage to the reptoid species. Particularly if the reptoid agenda is malevolent, why bother with the genetic engineering at the time it would have necessarly have taken place to explain the millenia-old bloodlines? Given the technology disparity why wouldn't the more technically advanced species simply pose as gods and maintain control directly?

The whole reptoid conspiracy thing is completely spurious. It is an unneccessary embellishment that does nothing to add to the explaination for the consistent bloodlines. Not only that but the whole bloodline thing is hardly worth mentioning. Certainly the ruling classes have intermarried and interbred for millennia. So what? Go back far enough and everyone is related. Midochondrial DNA (i.e. strands of DNA present in the cellular fluid between the nucleus and cell-wall) is passed matriliniarly in humans (sperm had no midochondria). Testing on present-day midochondrial DNA points to a single female ancestor to all living human bloodlines (note that this does *not* mean an isolated "Eve" - simply that the matralineal bloodlines of her contemporaries have died out, e.g. a familiy with no female children would pass no midochondrial DNA on the future generations) located in North Africa some four million years ago - which is roughly the same time we, as a species, began diverging from the bloodline that has resulted in modern Chimpanzees. The fact that you can make questionable connections between large populations by going back far enough is next to meaningless.

It just doesn't make any sense to throw in a bunch of unverifiable non-sense about lizards (or turkeys ) when it is all easily explainable with simple human genetics and behaviour. The simpler explaination is invariably the better one.

I reccomend some passing knowledge of William of Ockham (Entia non sunt multiplicanda practor necessitatum), Karl Popper's work on falsifiablity as the benchline for good science, and perhaps René Descarte's "Discourse on Reason".

(Reply to this)

> laughably untenable…completely spurious…unverifiable non-sense…

Your argument was interesting and well-written, and certainly brought a scientific perspective to the debate, but it failed my first criterion: I challenged you to respectfully and politely explain why reptoids are impossible. Sadly, the afore-quoted words would suggest that you were not capable of that.

What the hey, though; I’ll still read what you said. After all, I already have, right? So I might as well learn something from it. And I’ll even pass it on to Purple so he can consider it. What a deal! :)

(Reply to this)

>laughably untenable

Simply my position. I hold, with good reason, that the whole reptoid hypothesis is fundamentally flawed to the point that I find it amusing.

>completely spurious

Again, simply a premise in my argument. Spurious means "illegitemate; false" and in a philosphic context it is often used to mean an argument that isn't even worth making. This is precisely what I meant to point out. Adding reptoids into the mix has no validity as an argument.

>unverifiable non-sense

This is simply a consice way of saying that the reptoid hypothesis would not stand up to genuine scientific scutiny. Since Purple claims to actually have reptoid DNA, let's see solid evidence of a significant devation in his genome from that of an ordinary human. And if there is a devation let's see corroborating evidence from other samples that show the same deviation so we know it is not a random mutation. Then let's see further corroboration from a known "reptoid" implicated by Icke.

(Reply to this)

(Reply to this)

--I saw it on the Internet so it MUST be true...

(Reply to this)

(Reply to this)

And another question? How come everyone involved in this (Icke, Purple, Stonebrooke, you, Rhodes, and all the other nutters) have such butt ugly websites? No wonder you lot see people "shimmering" - your eyes are all fatigued from reading eachother's websites.

(Reply to this)

Hey Morbo ... do you think you are a Reptoid?

just curious is all

(Reply to this)

(Reply to this)

(Reply to this)

(Reply to this)

(Reply to this)