Genetic sequencing has established how all organisms are related to each other. It's a great example of a more modern science proving evolution with methods that weren't available 150 years ago. Such genetic variations also appear in relatively short time frames of less than 3000 years - including in humans.
Genetic tree of life:
That's how we know that whales are descendants of land animals, though one can also proof that with the fossil record and certain anatomical similarities.
Allow me to speak my peace...no politics involved I assure you. I believe that some form of evolution has indeed occurred. But, I'm not dogmatic about it. Science is and should be open-ended. I also believe transperia may also be involved. I also believe that homo sapien has been around for millions of years due to the number of artifacts that have been found embedded in matrixes dated millions of years old be they coal mines or gold excavations.
One of the big problems I have is basic DNA. This highly, highly complex structure had to have taken millions of years to evolve...not a hundred thousand.
I believe that the science establishment has a 'filter' mechanism that automatically prejudges many findings because "they just CAN'T fit" into current theories. I'm definitely not allowing for religion and mythicism. These theistic scams turn my stomach. There is no "magic-man-in-the-sky", BUT, knowing that, doesn't keep me from exploring additional possibilities.
You may want to look into claims of human artifacts being found in coal mines. I searched two that I heard about and found out that they were hoaxes. I remember that one was in California and an investigation was launched almost immediately afterward and several miners were interviewed who admitted that they had played a prank on the geologist in question because they didn't like him.
DNA did in fact take millions of years to evolve. In fact, there was a very long stretch (I think millions of years) over which RNA evolved, long before DNA ever entered the picture. Secondly, not every aspect of DNA/RNA needed to spontaneously form here on earth since space is full of very complex building blocks that have been incorporated into terrestrial life.
Science does indeed filter information that doesn't fit into the current model - but it doesn't get deleted such as one famous archaeologist likes to claim. The many who discovered Lucy had to wait over 30 years for his findings to be recognized, and the woman who got all in a huff about skepticism over her findings of pre-clovis ruins in North America has not said a word since pre-clovis ruins have come to be accepted. Science filters these things to wait for confirmation - you can't have a meaningful knowledge base if you immediately through out tens of thousands of findings to favour one new controversial one, so you have to move slowly to figure out what the controversial finding really means.
If you're referring to PHD geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre...the "huffing and puffing" came from her fellow scientists that rejected her findings out of hand even though she utilized 3 different aging techniques on the matrix involved and they all came to the same conclusion..man had made these artifacts over 200,000 years ago. Of course, that doesn't "fit in" with science's theory that modern man evolved just 100,000 years ago. The artifacts beneath Table Mountain in a matrix that was 55 millions years old was never thoroughly investigated...it was dropped. Same thing goes for discoveries in Indiana, et al.
Remember, Java man was accepted by the "temple" of science for many years...even exhibited in the Natural Museum of Science in London for many years. Those scientists were proved wrong later when it was finally admitted that the scalp portion of the cranium was indeed from an ancient ape.
Filtering...yes...apparently to the point that many fellow scientists have never had the opportunity to hear about such findings, sad...very sad.
Okay so the timeline is not fully accurate... of which you will find not one scientist ive heard say definitively it is 100 or 200k... but that its believed to be based on the evidence we have around that long...
Even if i give you 55 million how does that change the idea of DNA evolution AT ALL. doesnt it strengthen your previous argument that you dont think it could have been done in 100k years?
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by Belle Rose in Biology and Medicine. Last reply by Belle Rose 36 minutes ago.
Posted by Teri G on December 5, 2013 at 12:26pm
Added by EducationIsCool
Added by Isabel Garcia
How to unleash beast mode with Google
How does Netflix stream movies in high quality smoothly while YouTube can’t even stream a minute long video without buffering?
The War On Drugs
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.