DNA Disproves Darwin-When Will Darwinists Accept 21st Century Science? (belief, originate, Earth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a very strange thing to say considering genome mapping has added to the already existing tons of evidence. On what do you base your claim?
I've read a lot of things over the years since the time I was fascinated with evolution and have many many proofs go up in smoke, things that were once 'truth' are now in error...I am not knocking science, I believe in the DNA...While the human genome has been fully sequenced that of the chimp has not, so we have to wait to see just how closely related we are, if at all...The fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed, tells me that the entire universe is made up of energy in various forms...The fact that the human body has enough bio-electricity in it to power a flashlight also points to this...The fact that everything is made up of atoms and has an atomic structure points to it...Where did the energy come from that created the universe and just how big is the universe and if it has limits what is outside those boundaries?...If evolution is accurate something had to have caused all these mutations that have propagated all the species on this planet and it must be the natural environment as the causal effect...
I've read a lot of things over the years since the time I was fascinated with evolution and have many many proofs go up in smoke, things that were once 'truth' are now in error...I am not knocking science, I believe in the DNA...While the human genome has been fully sequenced that of the chimp has not, so we have to wait to see just how closely related we are, if at all...The fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed, tells me that the entire universe is made up of energy in various forms...The fact that the human body has enough bio-electricity in it to power a flashlight also points to this...The fact that everything is made up of atoms and has an atomic structure points to it...Where did the energy come from that created the universe and just how big is the universe and if it has limits what is outside those boundaries?...If evolution is accurate something had to have caused all these mutations that have propagated all the species on this planet and it must be the natural environment as the causal effect...
Yes, but that is both arguable and irrelevant to evolution -theory as such. Would a universe of enegy need to have 'come' from anywhere, and even if we postulated some uncreated creator (a concept I don't have enough faith to entertain) that Made it, from then on the universe can assemble itself out of natural forces without any need for an Intelligent designer.
There are plausible models for abiogenesis and DNA, though complex is not in itself a construct that cannot feasible be claimed to be impossible without some some creator putting it together.
Given DNA, we get the first cells and pre -cambrian blobs and then we are into evolution -theory (1). That is so heftily supported by evidence and the creation - claims are so non -scientific and unsupported by any evidence, I wonder that you could seriously consider the situation to be the other way around.
I have to admit that I suspect that your claims to fascination with evolution as they don't seem to have led to to read anything that helped you to understand what it was or what the evidence for it was.
(1) though, as I have said before, if and when abiogenesis is proven I am sure that will become part of the theory .
I've read a lot of things over the years since the time I was fascinated with evolution and have many many proofs go up in smoke,
Yeah, I keep hearing that but for some reason no one ever points which specific "proofs" have gone "up in smoke."
Quote:
I am not knocking science,
Really. Postulates within a theorem are often found to be in error that is the nature of scientific inquiry. Do such erroneous postulates disprove the overriding theorem usually not.
Quote:
I believe in the DNA...
Then ipso facto you believe in evolution.
Quote:
While the human genome has been fully sequenced that of the chimp has not, so we have to wait to see just how closely related we are, if at all...
Perhaps you should have said, "sort of believe in DNA," because the complete sequence isn't needed to demonstrate relationships just a statistical sample.
It seems obvious that you did not know this until you searched for it....
I am sure that is the case, which just goes to show you that before making assertions, a cursory google might be in order...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
What other media has reported this besides the WP?...
Why? Are you concerned that the Washington Post was fabricating this story back in 2005?
Your best bet would be to look at the original journal article referenced by the WP article. The research was conducted by teams affiliated with Washington University, MIT and Harvard and was published in the journal Nature. But of course you already knew that because you read the article you are fussing about, right?
In case you need more help, tryInitial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome ,Nature437, 69-87 (1 September 2005)
Beyond that one, there are quite a few papers comparing the complete or partial sections of the human and chimpanzee genomes. Quite fascinating stuff, although very rarely is there a handy, "and this is what it means to the layperson" section...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.