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

Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Relationship between Gravity & Evolution

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Robertson
    The eohippus is an example of a mammal which lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. It resembled a horse, but was about the size of a dog or cat, and is
    Message 1 of 260 , Jan 1, 2002
      The eohippus is an example of a mammal which lived at the same time as the
      dinosaurs. It resembled a horse, but was about the size of a dog or cat,
      and is believed to be the ancestor of the modern-day horse.
      I once heard a Creationist argue that one could cross an eohippus with a
      modern-day horse.
      I don't know, because I've never heard of anyone making the attempt.
      Maybe someday we will find a mature eohippus preserved in a block of ice.
      Then we can extract sperm if it's a man or eggs if it's a woman and settle
      the question once and for all.

      Thomas Robertson

      Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
    • Daniel MacArthur
      ... Daniel: What do you mean by if [the DNA is] removed, related DNA is lost ? This makes no sense to me. ... Daniel: I never referred to non-coding DNA as
      Message 260 of 260 , Jan 27, 2002
        Daniel (previously):
        > > > > I'm a molecular biologist myself, so I've had the good
        > > > > fortune to be able to examine the molecular evidence for
        > > > > evolution in some detail. In my opinion (and in the
        > > > > opinion of almost all other scientists) this evidence
        > > > > conclusively supports the theory of evolution. When it
        > > > > is added to the fossil and morphological evidence, the
        > > > > case for evolution as fact seems pretty solid.

        Ginger (previously):
        > > > I don't understand how a molecular biologist states het
        > > > sees no true intellect behind mollecular structure in
        > > > organisms.

        Daniel (previously):
        > > Actually, the more I learn about the biochemical nature of
        > > organisms the less "designed" they seem. Why would a
        > > creator build humans and chimpanzees containing exactly the
        > > same *non-functional* genes?

        > Non-functional DNA is now found VERY functional,if it's
        > removed,related DNA is lost.That makes me believe you
        > are one to jump to conclusions.

        What do you mean by "if [the DNA is] removed, related DNA is
        lost"? This makes no sense to me.

        > Non-coding DNA [secoundary or junk DNA]that you label
        > useless is now found functional as a structural element
        > in the nucleus.Futhermore,non-coding DNA contains
        > palindromes,maintain symmetry between complementary
        > strands,like language.

        I never referred to non-coding DNA as "useless". I was
        discussing pseudogenes.

        > Dr.H.Eugene Stanley,"It is almost incredible that the
        > occupant of one site on a gene would somehow influince
        > which nucleotide shows up every 100,000 bases away"

        Would you be able to quote the text surrounding this quote?
        What exactly is Dr Stanley referring to?

        > Non-coding DNA provides structure to help functions
        > that would be impossible without structure.Codes and
        > struture=design.

        I'm well aware of the structural roles performed by non-coding
        DNA. However, pseudogenes perform no such structural roles
        (they are short, non-repetitive sequences, unlike the tandem
        repeat regions implicated in the maintenance of chromosomal
        structure). Nor do they appear to perform any regulatory roles,
        as their removal (from mouse models) has no effect whatsoever
        on the fitness of the animal. For all intents and purposes,
        they are no more and no less than ancient genes inactivated by
        the accumulation of mutations, serving no function whatsoever,
        and yet they are identical in both chimpanzees and humans. Why?

        Daniel (previously):
        > > Why create all living organisms with genetic sequences that
        > > fit precisely and consistently into a nested hierarchy
        > > (this is predicted if they are related by common descent,
        > > but if they were created independently then the creator
        > > spent a *lot* of time and energy making them *seem* to be
        > > related by common descent).

        > We [animals and humans] have very simular designs,eyes,
        > ears,noses,ect. because we do have a common design.The key
        > word predicted,see I predict if we evolved,then some frogs
        > would have little wing nubs or some birds wouldn't have fully
        > shed her gills or scales.I don't know,but nor do you know
        > what exactly what genetic sequeces would be with evolutionary
        > factors.

        This explains nothing about why all organisms fit into a
        consistent nested hierarchy, but I suspect that this concept
        will take far too long to explain to you. I'll leave it for the

        There's no reason why frogs should have wing nubs, since the
        ancestors of amphibians diverged from the reptile lineage before
        the first birds evolved. As for birds having scales: they do!
        Feathers are developmentally related to reptilian scales. If you
        look under a microscope at feathers developing on a baby bird,
        they are indistinguishable from scales on a reptile. Is that the
        sort of evidence you were looking for?


        http://my.yahoo.com.au - My Yahoo!
        - It's My Yahoo! Get your own!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.