Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,246 Year: 5,503/9,624 Month: 528/323 Week: 25/143 Day: 15/10 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Post-Noah's Flood Period is Explained by Evolution
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 66 (467354)
05-21-2008 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jenifer
05-10-2008 6:12 PM


God, therefore, wrote the rules that nature abides by. Those rules include evolution! If nature, which has no will of its own, can change itself, it can only do so because God allowed it to do so
If there is a rule or law of evolution then it should be able to
proven. We have the technology to map the genes of organisms. We should
be able to track changes in every living thing back to an original
ancestor. This seems an obvious exercise for biology. And will
solve this controversy once and for all.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : Markup

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jenifer, posted 05-10-2008 6:12 PM Jenifer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 05-21-2008 8:13 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 66 (467484)
05-21-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Wounded King
05-21-2008 8:13 AM


Placing organisms on a tree of life based on morphology seems to
me to be quite arbitrary and unscientific.
We have blue-green algae that are supposed to be about
3.5 billion years old, alive. We put the their genetic structure on
the bottom. We have man, we put their (or some more advanced)
genetic structure on top. We work out what differences in structures
relates to which characteristics in organisms between species, families, kingdoms, classes and phyla. We fill in the
table and find out which traits were picked up by which organisms.
We should be able to tell where all animals and plants , extant, extinct and unknown originated genetically, geographically and temporally.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 05-21-2008 8:13 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 05-21-2008 9:50 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 53 by Wounded King, posted 05-22-2008 4:13 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 61 by deerbreh, posted 06-06-2008 2:59 PM LucyTheApe has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 66 (469647)
06-06-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by deerbreh
06-06-2008 2:59 PM


Blue Green Humans
So to classify one as on the bottom and another on the top has less meaning with the modern understanding of molecular biology. You are more like blue-green algae than you can imagine. You have the same basic DNA and basic biochemistry, for one thing, with the exeption that blue-green algae can capture energy directly from the sun and you can't. So in that sense blue-green algae are actually a bit more sophisticated.
I don't have to catch sunlight for energy, I can go to McDonalds.
Forget the unscientific subjective morphological classification. We created the table of elements without seeing any elements. We should be able to do the same with DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by deerbreh, posted 06-06-2008 2:59 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Granny Magda, posted 06-07-2008 5:02 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 64 by deerbreh, posted 06-07-2008 11:23 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 65 by Copasetic, posted 06-09-2008 9:53 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 66 by deerbreh, posted 06-17-2008 9:23 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024