Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Against Spacetime!

Expand Messages
  • Pasha
    Roy asks:  How about providing evidence of branches of the tree of life where the plants and animals split. It couldn t have happened in just one or two
    Message 1 of 37 , Feb 1, 2011
      Roy asks:  How about providing evidence of branches of the tree of life where the plants

      and animals split. It couldn't have happened in just one or two generations. It

      must have taken thousands of years and where are the intermediate animal/plant

      forms?

      Pasha responds:  Biologists have reason to believe plants evolved from a single celled eukaryote, and that animals evolved from a different single celled eukaryote.  Even if they both shared some multicellular ancestor, that species may well have survived tens of millions of years as a soft bodies organism.  You're asking for fossils of organisms more than half a billion years old, Roy.

      In astra lumina, Veritas!















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Roy Stanford
      All life does share certain particles, molecules, genes, chemicals and chemical reactions. How do you relate to a banana for instance, which may share up to
      Message 37 of 37 , Feb 1, 2011
        All life does share certain particles, molecules, genes, chemicals and chemical
        reactions. How do you relate to a banana for instance, which may share up to 50%
        of your genome?




        ________________________________
        From: D R Lindberg <dr.lindberg@...>
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, February 1, 2011 9:49:30 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Against Spacetime!



        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Roy Stanford <res2415@...> wrote:
        >
        > How about providing evidence of branches of the tree of life where the
        plants
        > and animals split. It couldn't have happened in just one or two
        generations. It
        > must have taken thousands of years and where are the intermediate
        animal/plant
        > forms?
        >

        We are talking about a time long ago from which very little evidence has
        survived, so it is not easy to find. However, somethings we can be
        pretty sure of even without direct evidence, even as we continue to
        search.

        My mother's cousin was an air force pilot stationed in England during WW
        II. During a period of leave he went up to the village in Scotland from
        which the family had left in the 1700s. He found the village, and people
        living there with the same family name, and similar Christian names
        traditionally passed down over the generations, and even some family
        resemblance in features. So we think that we can be pretty sure that we
        are related, even though all family records from that far back have been
        lost. Do you think that it is more rational to assume that, since we
        don't have clear written records, we must be completely unrelated?

        Cheers!

        T. Ryan Gregory's "Onion Test". If you think you have come up with a
        sure fire explanation for junk DNA then you need to explain why an onion
        needs a bigger genome than humans.

        http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/09/creationist_almost_discovers_p.php
        <http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/09/creationist_almost_discovers_p.php>

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.