User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 45 of 147 FirstFirst ... 354142434445464748495595145 ... LastLast
Results 353 to 360 of 1176

Thread: Where does everyone stand in regards to...

  1. #353
    Jeremiah Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,239
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello

    Capslock there are two main explanations for that...

    1. Like organisms require a similar environment to survive so it make since that you would find them in similar area of rock.

    2. The more "highly developed" organisms would be able to find higher ground (in the flood) therefore wound not have near the rate of petrifaction and be higher up in the "layers". All together vertebrates fossils are only a fraction of the fossil record.

    One other thing it is not always the case hundreds of trees have been found standing through millions of layers worth of starts such as this

    thanks
    -Jeremiah-

    I'm sorry but macroevolution (going from rock to human) has absolutely no proof. All I have seen is stuff like a fly having 4 wings instead of 2, the DNA for the wings is already there it just put them in the wrong spot, there was nothing new added.

    Next question how was first cell capable of ual reproduction? And how was the gene pool in that first cell larger enough to produce such a divers array of living things?

    thanks
    -Jeremiah-

  2. #354
    God must have an interesting sense of humor Wesley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    1,559
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mike,
    I'm sorry if you thought I was pointing at you. It was a general warning. It's great that you don't feel attacked, I've become quite curios about peoples beliefs too. I've learned a lot in this thread, and I hope to goodness I don't EVER have to read the entire topic again! LOL
    ~Wes~

    My plants are going green to save the environment

    My Growlist

  3. #355

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,706
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Jeremiah Harris @ Jan. 01 2005,5:32)]I'm sorry but macroevolution (going from rock to human) has absolutely no proof. All I have seen is stuff like a fly having 4 wings instead of 2, the DNA for the wings is already there it just put them in the wrong spot, there was nothing new added.
    We never went from rock to human and if you mean going from inorganic to organic.. it was pretty easy. I've e-mailed a scientist from AMNH for a more thorough explanation of how the first bacteria got to be, but for now that question can be answered by my explanation or self replicating RNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Next question how was first cell capable of sexual reproduction? And how was the gene pool in that first cell larger enough to produce such a divers array of living things?
    The first cell wasn't capable of sexual reproduction, it reproduced asexually. I don't think we've asked a question yet...
    They say if you play a Microsoft CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. Thats nothing, cause if you play it forwards, it installs Windows.

  4. #356

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi jeremiah,
    That link does not work..
    Best Regards

    Mike King

    NCCPG National collection holder of Sarracenia

    http://www.carnivorousplants.uk.com

  5. #357

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]The more "highly developed" organisms would be able to find higher ground (in the flood) therefore wound not have near the rate of petrifaction and be higher up in the "layers".
    more "highly developed" (there's no such thing.... even if there was, roaches would be more "highly developed" than humans because BOY can they survive!) but assuming there is such a thing as more "highly developed", that is not the same as bigger, faster, or able to go to higher ground.
    a snail from today is not found below velociraptors (as an example). Velociraptors are way faster and by your thinking would be able to get to the younger rocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]1. Like organisms require a similar environment to survive so it make since that you would find them in similar area of rock.
    But you do not find lions among llamas, etc. Right now there are many places with very similar climate and organisms from others parts of the would would do very nicely in other parts of the world. (Ie. cane toads are from south america but do GREAT in australia, etc)
    Besides, the age of the rocks and the fossils are totally inconsistant to your thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ] One other thing it is not always the case hundreds of trees have been found standing through millions of layers worth of starts such as this
    Jerimiah, your site doesn't work with me.
    If you're saying what I think you're saying (that certain species of trees have been found in old rocks as well as young layers) That doesn't go against evolution at all. Some species (sharks, roaches, etc) are more succesful than others and are therefore able to survive longer.
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  6. #358

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Next question how was first cell capable of sexual reproduction? And how was the gene pool in that first cell larger enough to produce such a divers array of living things?
    what john said.
    even right now there are many organisms (from single cells to plants and animals etc.) that ONLY reproduce asexualy.
    The gene pool didn't have to be large. Have you ever heard of organisms that have multiple of the same chromosome? there are many species of plants that have dozens of extra chromosomes (some may be bad, like down's syndrome but many plants/etc have extra chromosomes and are perfectly fine)
    evolution of new information
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

  7. #359
    Jeremiah Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,239
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "We never went from rock to human and if you mean going from inorganic to organic.."
    What inorganic material are we talking about?

    "The first cell wasn't capable of ual reproduction, it reproduced asexually. I don't think we've asked a question yet..."
    But if it reproduced asexually then the daughter cells would have the exact same DNA right?

    Yeah Capslock did right?

    "more "highly developed" (there's no such thing...."
    All the evolution charts I have seen would place an elephant above something like a protozoan even if they my be just as complex.

    "The gene pool didn't have to be large."
    So are you saying that one single cell could have the genetic code for the tens of billions of unique organisms found today?

    thanks
    -Jeremiah-

  8. #360

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]But if it reproduced asexually then the daughter cells would have the exact same DNA right?
    Yes, it did have the exact DNA (usually... sometimes extra chromosomes slipped into the daughter cell) which then mutated.
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]"The gene pool didn't have to be large."
    So are you saying that one single cell could have the genetic code for the tens of billions of unique organisms found today?
    Nobody said that. Like I said before, sometimes there are extra chromosomes, etc in daughter organisms. That's how the chromosome number increased over time.

    as for the trees, Floods do happen. That doesn't mean that it's proof of one giant flood that covered the whole entire earth. They go through many rock LAYERS not periods of time.
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish-Euripides
    wikipedia rocks! (except for species info)(CPers-add your vast knowledge of CPs to wikipedia&#33
    A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it
    Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •