Subject:
|
Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:56:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
141 times
|
| |
|
|
> So therefore chromosomal change never happens? Is that the point?
No, I think Downs Syndrome is a case of such chromosomal changes. I just
want to know why critters that look so much alike outwardly are so
genetically different and how they got to be that way. I wish I had the
charts that I found in my college days. How does all that work?
> > I always wondered about those fish evolving legs. Is there a place between
> > fin and leg where you're not good at swimming and you're worse at walking?
>
> Maybe. Seals seem to do okay though.
>
> > Doesn't a fin become a bad fin long before it becomes a good leg?
>
> Could be an okay fin and a really ordinary leg first. Ever heard of lungfish?
I read about the Lungfish via Encarta. The picture didn't have legs.
What's your point?
> > If so, how did those mutant critters survive?
>
> If there wasn't anything else on land to eat them, they probably had a great
> time.
>
> > And how many evolutional oopses did it take before it happened?
>
> Does it matter? How many Christians died before the Bible became widely
> acccepted as the word of God?
I guess it would have to matter for mathematical probability to make sense.
How many Downs Syndrome children will be born before we give rise to X-men?
Do we keep extending the age of the earth to account for the amount of time
that had to take place for all these changes to take place. How do we
determine that? I'm asking you.
> > And regarding the destruction of the dinosaurs and the rising of the
> > mammals. We were told in school that it was probably a big ole meteor(ite?)
> > that did it. And the itsy bitsy mammals survived and the terrible lizards
> > died because of all that dust. But weren't there some itsy bitsy dinosaurs
> > that were smaller than some of the big ole mammals? I still don't get it
> > why little mammals could breathe that yucky air and feel pretty good about
> > it. I bet they stayed in their non-dusty holes. Do mammals have better
> > lungs than reptiles? They must, since they have smaller lung capacity.
>
> Maybe what they told you in school was wrong. Maybe dinosaurs were wiped out
> by a virus. Maybe all sorts of things. I don't understand your point, please
> explain it more clearly.
I think it had something to do with those speckled moths. Again, I'm not a
scientist and I'm dropping questions that have yet to be answered. In
response to your comment, is there any evidence for a world wide virus? How
did these dinosaurs that have been found appear to have died? Surely there
is enough knowledge about autopsies and things that it could be determined?
I don't know.
> > I always thought that if we're all here by a series of accidents and we vary
> > from the amoeba only in the complexity of our makeup, than the most
> > righteous person would be the person who kills the most people, since even
> > the most environmentally conscious American (besides maybe the amish) has
> > done more to destroy natural habitats than any other species just by driving
> > cars and chewing gum (since you can't recycle the foil from gum wrappers)
> >
> > Or maybe the highest form of morality is the person who can control
> > everything and everyone around them and live the longest and be the most
> > comfortable, since survival of the fittest is the powerful force that has
> > shaped us all. There would have to be a blatant disregard for the
> > environment as long as it didn't interfere with me or mine.
>
> These are some interesting points, although I disagree with your
> conclusions. I'm not sure what they have to do with the age of the earth though.
What are your conclusions then? They have nothing to do with the age of the
earth, but more sociological implications if we really are really just top
of the dung heap.
> > I must confess that despite lots of big words that scientists can use and
> > lots of important names that smart people can name, I still think Planet of
> > the Apes was a pretty unrealistic movie.
>
> The costumes sucked, sure. But why was it so unrealistic?
Hmmm. The fact that only the monkeys evolved (so far as we could see) and
they were speaking english. This became grossly apparent and demanded
explanation when the main character wrote a note to the chimp scientist. I
haven't seen any but the first, and I question why the humans that were
there under the dominion of the monkeys de-evolved? Were they another
species, or did they survive better being dumb? Please tell me why you
consider the costumes to be the worst discrepancy.
> > Junk science.
>
> Like creationism you mean?
No, more that the only answer you can afford me was "Lungfish." Thanks for
your wisdom.
Markus
> --DaveL
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) Generally a full autopsy requires the examination of such soft bits as are seldom preserved for 65+ million years. With this in mind, it's difficult to assess the viral pathology of an organism of which you have only fossilized bones (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) Many organisms, particularly plants, cope very well with multiple copies of the same (or similar) chromosomes. For example, modern agricultural wheat has three "sub-genomes" which are more or less identical. Spelt (I think), a more ancient (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) So therefore chromosomal change never happens? Is that the point? (...) Maybe. Seals seem to do okay though. (...) Could be an okay fin and a really ordinary leg first. Ever heard of lungfish? (...) If there wasn't anything else on land to eat (...) (23 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
