- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLWhy do you need the bible to back this idea up?
Answer: True. Essentially this means that things eventially "wear out." The universe is not eternal; it had a beginning, and will eventually wear out. Two-and-a-half-tohousand years before the birth of modern science, when the brightest thinkers were confident that the universe was eternal, the Bible said that the universe would "wear out:"...the heavens are ...[text shortened]... They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment" (psalm 102:25,26).
It's totally redundant in this sense, the science is quite clear on this, backed up with empirical evidence, your bible quote has no such thing.
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLYes but if you found out you really were half of a banana would you eat yourself?
Answer: False. The DNA in bananas is 50% similar to human DNA, but no one would speculate that we are "half a banana." Although the field of comparative genetics has revealed some interesting facts about the similarities (and differences) of DNA among different species, it says nothing about the origin of our DNA or the historical relationship between species.
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLYes. I would speculate that we are indeed "half a banana". We have a very old common ancestor with bananas.
Answer: False. The DNA in bananas is 50% similar to human DNA, but no one would speculate that we are "half a banana." Although the field of comparative genetics has revealed some interesting facts about the similarities (and differences) of DNA among different species, it says nothing about the origin of our DNA or the historical relationship between species.
Your point, oh master of pointless drivel?
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLIf he gave any of those answers, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
3. Fill in the blank. Respected evolutionist, David Kitts, said, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most nasty difficulties for evolutionists the notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires_________ betwee ...[text shortened]... t provide them."
A. missing links.
B. much more fossil evidence.
C. intermediate forms.
Of course, you haven't stipulated that he said it in 1974! 30 years ago. And a lot has changed in evolutionary biology in that time.
For example, we've found 7 transitional land to sea dwelling whale "transitional forms".
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLAnd your point is?
Answer: True. Essentially this means that things eventially "wear out." The universe is not eternal; it had a beginning, and will eventually wear out. Two-and-a-half-tohousand years before the birth of modern science, when the brightest thinkers were confident that the universe was eternal, the Bible said that the universe would "wear out:"...the heavens are ...[text shortened]... They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment" (psalm 102:25,26).
Perhaps, like dj2becker, you believe that things cannot become more complex through time. Maybe you believe that plants can't grow, children don't grow up, and water cannot be pumped up hill.
07 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzPrecisely. I wonder why this is so confusing to people. We are closer
We have a very old common ancestor with bananas.
relatives to chimps and thus we have more DNA in common.
If genome mapping were easy (as in, didn't take a super-long time),
it would be really neat to map how related all living things were -- how
closely related spiders were to crabs, say, or salamanders to geckos,
or those ancient dead proto-horses to modern ones.
Such relationships would illustrate so very clearly the DNA relatedness
of various organisms to add (even more) evidence to the evolutionary
claim.
Nemesio
07 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioWe can! It's called cladistics (or phyllogenetics). Normally, it's done on one (or several) particular genes, but it can be done on whole genomes, if you have the info.
Precisely. I wonder why this is so confusing to people. We are closer
relatives to chimps and thus we have more DNA in common.
If genome mapping were easy (as in, didn't take a super-long time),
it would be really neat to map how related all living things were -- how
closely related spiders were to crabs, say, or salamanders to geckos,
or those a ...[text shortened]... dness
of various organisms to add (even more) evidence to the evolutionary
claim.
Nemesio
Often, info from several genes will link up to give very close or perfect trees.
[edit; a brief wiki article on the subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree]
08 Apr 07
Originally posted by NemesioThere is a very good popular science book called The Ancestor's Tale that does this very thing.
If genome mapping were easy (as in, didn't take a super-long time),
it would be really neat to map how related all living things were -- how
closely related spiders were to crabs, say, or salamanders to geckos,
or those ancient dead proto-horses to modern ones.
Such relationships would illustrate so very clearly the DNA relatedness
of various organisms to add (even more) evidence to the evolutionary
claim.
Nemesio