evolution vs creationism (Page 5) bigheartben: life spawns in the deepest corners of the universe, "primordial soup" yarda yarda, google viruses and the beginning or what's stated so far and look at the intracies of life, we where made of virus materials way beyond the viruses we see today...... our guts are made of bacteria, our liver is made by another. I am not an aethiest, agnostic, however look at the evidence............... bigheartben: and to you god botherers, if Noah did realllly save two of each animal on his wooden boat for eighty days, then the queen and drone of the termite variety would have had a field day no?????  Corwin: Colin brought up an interesting point in jest, which actually holds more truth than he may have realized. "@ - "Just as someone who would refute that the apple falls to the ground" Ok, I refute that . I claim that the ground falls to the apple." ------ According to Einstein's interpretation of Gravity, this is, in fact, exactly what is happening. Einstein's genius manifested itself as not merely being the guy who had the right answers, but more importantly the guy who had a knack for asking the right questions... he did this with clever thought-experiments. Einstein asked himself, "Why does 1g of acceleration feel the same as 1g of Gravity?" --- Because they ARE the same. When we stand on the surface of the Earth, we are standing in a location in space/time that is greatly curved by the tremendous mass of the Earth itself... the ground beneath our feet is in fact the thing that behaves as if it is accelerating "upwards" at a rate of 1g. The apple is just an apple, and is only doing it's best to remain stationary. So, unlike Newton's idea of an unseen "force" we call Gravity... it turns out not to be a force at all, but merely a by-product of the curvature of space.... and the ground does indeed rush up to meet the apple. "Matter tells space how to curve... space tells matter how to move." ---- Albert Einstein. ------ But, that being said.... to the uninformed observer, the Apple does appear to be the thing that is falling... and Newton's equations are still close enough to the mark to put a man on the moon, regardless of the fact that Newton had no idea as to what Gravity really was. Just as Darwin laid out a fundamental notion of the workings of Heredity, without having a clue as to what DNA was... but Heredity can be observed in real-time, just as apples can be observed to fall, regardless if the inner workings of the process had been beyond the reach of observation (for the time being). But I propose that with the discovery of the double-helix and by cracking the code of the genome, we now hold the "smoking-gun" of evidence to support Evolution. We have seen the "God" of Heredity with our own eyes. We not only have confirmed that all life on this planet is related to each other, but can calculate with reasonable accuracy just how far in the distant past we share a common ancestor... and this genetic commonality can be traced right back the the primordial ooze that started it all, as we share genetic markers even with a bacterium. Let's compare Human DNA with Chimpanzee DNA.... our best estimate is that we both shared a common ancestor as recently as 25 million years ago. And the difference in our present-day DNA only differs by a couple of percent. The amount of genetic-drift necessary to exact a 2% variation over 25 million years is no greater than the drift between father and son. Is it so hard to fathom that we are distant cousins?  duncan124: Unfortunately there is the same difference between humans and other animals and chimpanzees and other animals. And the conclusion is DNA is converging. As chimpanzees are as different from the ancient apes which humans are said to evolve from the results are very surprising. (Edited by duncan124) bigheartben: ok, however einstein's 'predictions' don't necicarily equate to reality, are all his conceptual theories equate to reality...... i.e. realativity duncan124: If hands are similar then so is the DNA. And DNA looks the same in all animals because it makes the same shapes. duncan124: Natural selection means that there is a niche for certain types of animals which can be filled by several different sources. Corwin: Similar yes... but similar by varying percentages. Between Humans and other Apes, only a few percent... between Humans and say a Rodent, we're talking about 15% difference... between Humans and a Crocodile about 25% difference..... and between Humans and fish, about 35% difference. The bigger the difference the further back we share a common ancestor. If you go back 500 million years, to the beginning of the Cambrian Period, you will find an ancestor which every single animal, land or sea, is all related to. The Cambrian Period was when the first multi-cellular organisms appeared... from that point, even a Cockroach shares a common ancestor with Humans. (a segmented worm, to be exact) (Edited by Corwin) duncan124: You say but others say different. Chimpanzees are far more different then 2% would make you think. They are also different from other apes. Are you sure it said DNA and not 'Design'. Some apes have much the same parts as humans but a widely different from us. Their muscles and bones are all joined in the same way and work in the same way which is quite close to humans but Chimps have 2% difference in 'design idea'. Corwin: No, but Chimps are a species of the family of Primate referred to as the Great Apes (known as Hominidae).... along with Gorillas, Baboons, and Orangutans, and Humans.... then we have the more primitive Primates that belong in the Monkey family. These all share a common Primate ancestor. (Edited by Corwin) duncan124: Apes are a successful shape or type and from a number of sources animals evolved into apes and perhaps evolved away again. It is n't likely that they all seperated from one type of ape. Corwin: All apes DID evolve from a common ancestor... if you go back far enough, you will find a common ancestor... that's how this works. Look up a "family tree" of all life on this planet... I can find you a link to one if you like. duncan124: No its like plants. You can seperate the red and the orange flowers out by selection but you can't then use the red after the orange or the orange after the red. Once something has got the DNA for one shape it does n't have the old shape DNA for future changes. | Science Chat Room
3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |