Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Relationship between Gravity & Evolution
- 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
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.
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
- Daniel (previously):
> > > > I'm a molecular biologist myself, so I've had the goodGinger (previously):
> > > > 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.
> > > I don't understand how a molecular biologist states hetDaniel (previously):
> > > sees no true intellect behind mollecular structure in
> > > organisms.
> > Actually, the more I learn about the biochemical nature ofGinger:
> > 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'sDaniel:
> 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 labelDaniel:
> 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
> Dr.H.Eugene Stanley,"It is almost incredible that theDaniel:
> 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 functionsDaniel:
> that would be impossible without structure.Codes and
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?
> > Why create all living organisms with genetic sequences thatGinger:
> > 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,Daniel:
> 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
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!