29 Jul '05 12:17>
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeCan you answer my question?
So explain the homology of Mads box genes
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, we can actually see that todays
I'm saying that instead of going back in the evolutionary time line
we would not find a single source for all life in the evolutinary time
line, the single cell life form. We would see what creatin says is there
several types of kinds and from those kinds we get the variety of life
we see today. We would not see grass, rats, eagles, whales, ants,
rose ...[text shortened]... that occur,
but they start and end within kinds, you start with dogs you end with
dogs.
Kelly
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou actually believe we see this today? Are you serious or cracking a
No, we can actually see that todays
species have diverged from species
before and that they too have diverged.
As they say, man is made from slugs
and snails and puppy dogs tails.
Originally posted by KellyJaythe homology of homeobox and MADS box genes shows that life on earth started from a fairly narrow base. It could be that there were many 'starting points' It may be that when we sample the life forms from the bottom of the deep oceans that we find a whole setr of populations that have nothing in common with the rest of life on earth.
Show me how you know there was just one gene pool at the beginning
of life and not several. You said you see it, show it to me.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeExplain in a little more detail please; it sounds like your saying
the homology of homeobox and MADS box genes shows that life on earth started from a fairly narrow base. It could be that there were many 'starting points' It may be that when we sample the life forms from the bottom of the deep oceans that we find a whole setr of populations that have nothing in common with the rest of life on earth.
That would be so cool
Originally posted by KellyJayI approve strongly. They are indeed stand-alone subjects. Would all the fundies please stop getting so uptight. Science has not interest in destroying faith so please let the converse be true
The two are stand alone subjects!
If evolution is shown to be false, that does not mean that the
creation story in OT is true.
They are not linked so that they are an either or.
OT can be true, and only parts of evolution would have to be wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf each 'kind' appeared de novo rather than sharing common ancestry there would be no reason to expect the 'kinds' to share features at a molecular and cellular level. What we observe in reality are large numbers of similarities (eg MADS box and homeobox genes) that lead to the conclusion that life on earth does share a common ancestry.
I'm saying that instead of going back in the evolutionary time line
we would not find a single source for all life in the evolutinary time
line, the single cell life form. We would see what creatin says is there
several types of kinds and from those kinds we get the variety of life
we see today. We would not see grass, rats, eagles, whales, ants,
rose ...[text shortened]... that occur,
but they start and end within kinds, you start with dogs you end with
dogs.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't take the piss please. So why is there so much junk code as well? Why is it assembled in the same code?
Explain in a little more detail please; it sounds like your saying
that if there are similarities within DNA that alone proves all life
started from the same single narrow base. You get the same type
of results within programming where a good programmer uses
the same language and writes code basically the same way, but
does so for different reasons. To ...[text shortened]... ose from a series of cosmic
accidents or however you believe life started without a God.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeAs above, so below.
the homology of homeobox and MADS box genes shows that life on earth started from a fairly narrow base. It could be that there were many 'starting points' It may be that when we sample the life forms from the bottom of the deep oceans that we find a whole setr of populations that have nothing in common with the rest of life on earth.
That would be so cool
Originally posted by Thequ1ckVery true.
As above, so below.
Kelly is making a valid point that we don't actually KNOW for sure
the origins of life.
We are still testing theories of whether we had the right climatic
conditions on earth for the first amino acids or whether they arrived
from on asteroids. Either are perfectly possible.
I just don't see how this relates to the OT?
Kelly s ...[text shortened]... I think
that even the most devout will agree to a certain amount of metaphore
in the bible.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckKelly seems to be backing up the evolutionary chain with his
As above, so below.
Kelly is making a valid point that we don't actually KNOW for sure
the origins of life.
We are still testing theories of whether we had the right climatic
conditions on earth for the first amino acids or whether they arrived
from on asteroids. Either are perfectly possible.
I just don't see how this relates to the OT?
Kelly s ...[text shortened]... I think
that even the most devout will agree to a certain amount of metaphore
in the bible.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCorrect, when I am talking about several sources I'm speaking of
[b]Kelly seems to be backing up the evolutionary chain with his
argument, starting from species, then to single cells, then to genes.
I don't know what argument you're referring to here, but from what I understand, Kelly do ...[text shortened]... nd dogs for example were created independently from the beginning.[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayWe cannot bring anything to the table to differentiate between the two possibilities because of the restrictions you've placed on what would be evidence. There are a great many things that by far most scientists, especially biologists, agree are evidence for common ancestry of all life. For example, the existence of mammals, vs reptiles, vs birds... of course it's possible that "Goddunnit" for his own reasons, but there are infinite possibilities.
Correct, when I am talking about several sources I'm speaking of
those original creatures that God made that were brought before
Adam to be named. If you look at the creation story within Genesis
you will see that on the third day God ...[text shortened]... inition of how to define a kind to everyone’s satisfaction.
Kelly