Ã‚Â Hi again McStone. I really appreciate your eagerness to debate this issue.
Not at all.
"As I know"?. I don't subscribe to your false assertion; your premise fails. There are plenty of dead genes within the environment that produce no proteins.
Lucy, stop deliberately getting bogged down in semantics. The fact that you even followed me up on that shows, without doubt, your undying willingness to take things literally. "Non coding" can apply to non-coding sequences, extinct genes and more. "Non-coding" refers to things which dont presently code for anything. I didnt
think i had to explain that.
Forgive my ignorance McStone, I haven't done much research on this topic. Can you please give me a reference to a paper or site that has evidence of an ape giving birth to a human. Is that something that happens in the lab...or in the fertile minds of God deniers?
And also, if you can establish this with reasonable certainty, it should be a simple straightforward process to show that some other, less evolved animal gave birth to an ape and so on down the line. Where did the minerals and chemicals come from to produce the first animal? A rock?
LOL. Your analysis of evolution is so simplistic. Its the classic creationist misunderstanding of the subject:"Yeah? When was the last time you saw a man come from an ape??? God denier!!!"
For the record its not what evolution even postulates
. Humans didnt suddenly spring forth from a chimp-like animal, and no one would dream of saying as much. Human evolution, like that of all species, exists on a gradient
. The only reason it looks so "distinct" is because of our reading frame. Because we are the only Homo
species still alive, the differences with other species are more apparent.
Human ancestors progressively acquired a number of characters; not least, an expansion of cranial capacity and bipedialism (linked, among other things to a changing environment, and observed, at the same time, in other ape species). These can be traced though the fossil record, oh, and you guess it, are also confirmed by genetic evidence. You have a god, you must realise, who, not satisfied with creating chimps and humans >98% indentical, also creates a whole range of other "human-like" species, and even, shock horror, creates other species of human
. Despite best YEC argument, it doesnt change the fact that other human species existed; they are other human species, genetically isolated from us, despite sharing our ranges for hundreds of thousands of years. Puzzling that, wouldnt you say? And no, before you say it, they didnt suffer from some continental-wide
bout of rickets or some head condition.
Your understanding of Abiogenesis is also cynical. Life formed from organic compounds, which form spontaneously. Your use of "Rock" is merely a cheap rabble-rousing tactic. Who, afterall, wants human life dirtied by being associated, somehow, with the natural world?
Life, or the precusor of life, may well have come from some rock-catalysed reaction, (most probably clay) because Lucy, these things - called elements - are the same in rocks as they are in life forms, they are just, at the end of the day, in a different order. Life forms extract energy and elements from the environment around them. Sometimes indirectly through other organisms, sometimes directly, like the fascinating chemoautotrophs of hydrothermal vents, who extract the energy from elemental sulphur - pumped, quite literally - from inside the earth. Carbon, once absorbed in the ocean, finds its way into rock, right at the bottom of the ocean, and, over past periods of time, may be slowly uplifted through metamorphism and volcanic activity, may enter the atmosphere, may be absorbed by plants, be eaten, respired and excreted and may enter the ocean again. You can actually trace the process. Plants are made from carbon atoms, which originally come from the ground. We all are.
Same with water, same with nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, silica.....
The point is, life is a conduit
of the earths chemical energy. Evolution is about the streamlining of that process.
Does abiogenesis sound so silly now?
If you are so different from this process, why do you breath? Why do you eat? Why didnt god think it appropriate to remove that most degrading process - that great leveller - going to the toliet? Like it or not, you are part of this world, and its rules.
As for your comments on god, believing in god is a personal belief. If the above stops you believing in god, so be it. If not, so be it.
It doesnt stop the above being truthful.
I also find your opinions of "fertile minds" a bit ironic. Your alternative is so basic that, essentially, a 5 year old child with your worldview - despite having no life experience, or substantive education - would know the same about the world and its origin as an adult with your worldview. Apparently, the academic power of Noah et al.
doesnt know any age limits. Mind you, personally, i dont think i would appreciate the whimsy of the "Noah's ark jigsaw" nearly half as much.
My god. Its science in action. Right down to the smiling sun. Look at them. The're all having a WHALE of a time. From the look of them, you wouldnt think God has just destroyed the world and doomed them to a future of genetic inbreeding.
You were saying something about having a fertile mind?
As I said, what you see in the sediment is what we "observe" today.
Things buried deeper in the sediment are things that live lower down in the earth today. Things that are buried higher in the sediment are things that we see living higher up on the earth today. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?
Yes, because its complete and utterly nonsensical. Your still not grasping what im saying. Beyond a certain layer, we dont find certain classes. It doesnt matter if these classes are still alive today, or that the classes are now extinct. The fossil record is graduated, beyond all reasonable assertions of
"well they lived in different areas"
I don't know where you're coming from here McStone. Is 'Pride and Prejudice' a mirror image of 'A tale of two Cities'? They both contain all the same symbols, a lot of the same words and many of the same sentences.
Well they are both good books (by english authors, i might add), but i suspect you want to dig a little deeper then that.
So let me spell it out as simply as i can:
At the very bottom of the fossil record (c.
1.7bya), we find simple eukaryotic organisms; algae mats and such. We dont find anything more complicated below them.
When we look at eukaryotic genomes, the simplest - not in terms of nucleotide number - the simplest in terms of genes and their products, are simple one celled organisms, just like the constituents of algae mats
We go a bit higher in the fossil record (c.
630mya), we start to find simple protostome animals - animals distinguished by their first embryonic hole becoming their mouth. We dont find protstomes any lower.
When we look at modern animal genomes, the simplest, in terms of body plan coding etc - are those of protostomes.
If we go even higher (c.
540mya), we start to see deutrostomes - the ancestors of all vertebrates.
Fossil deutrostomes are distinguished by the first embryonic hole becoming their ass. We dont find deutrostomes any lower.
If we look at modern deutrostome genomes, we see deutrostomes have the genes necessary to develop a core complicated infolding in the embryo.
Higher still (c.
530mya), we see fossils progressively start displaying notochords, nerve cords, pharyngeal slits and craniums. We dont find these characters any lower.
If we look at modern animals with these characters, we find that genomes get more complicated with each of these additions. The new characters are added to the genome, but not in replace of the previous ones.
Higher still (c.
390mya), we find fossils that have 4 limbs. We dont find fossils with four limbs below this level.
If we look at modern animals with 4 limbs, we see their genomes have new hox genes added to those of their non-limbed brethrin.
and so on. Thats a worldwide pattern. Thats the best way i can explain it. Its not easy to read. But thats the general trend.
Anyone willing to spill the beans why?
Lastly, ive picked this little quote from bobabelever
Again, simple answers are usually the best answers. God didn't intend for our understanding of the Earth to be so complicated, He did give us dominion over it.
That, my friends, is the summation of creationism. What does the world matter? What does the evidence matter? Why complicate things?
Its like you've got a "get out of education free card" because it happens to be "complicated". Dont worry, bobabelever, you dont have to burden yourself with it. Scientists will make sure crops still grow, that oil still runs, that you have medicine.
Ask yourselves whether you are happy with such a simplistic - such a dogmatic - view of the world. The very fact that im here debating it shows it cannot be "perfect". Its not as simplistic as bobabelever would have you "beleve".
God, as you understand him at least, is a fool.
Im going to take a stab in the dark here. But im going to guess that you dont think man-made global warming is happening either. If you do think its happening, you dont think its important. Why do you think i can guess this so accurately?