Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Humans evolved from a prehistoric SHARK from 300m years ago.
On 6/20/12 09:42 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
On 6/19/2012 7:05 PM, Mike wrote: On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:16:01 AM UTC-4, Ric Trexell wrote: [...] That fish turned into a monkey. 8. That monkey turned into a man. So although evolutionists say we are related to the monkey, we are really related to a rock. If you have any problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what evolutionist believe. This is what is taught in the public education system and our colleges. Those that don't think we were evolved from a rock are called creationists. So next time you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over carefully because it might be your ancestor. As hard as it is for you to accept, everything in this universe comes from elements created by the fusion of hydrogen. But hydrogen can result in many different elements under conditions of enormous pressure. I choose to believe that this is the process God used to create the universe. God's creation is what we have in common with rocks, stars, and all life throughout the universe. Only the truly ignorant can think they can explain exactly how God created this Universe, but I think people with intelligence can figure that the total story was not neatly laid out in Genesis. I pity someone whose faith requires them to abandon scientific reasoning. They need to closely examine the foundations of such a belief. A creationist may not acknowledge that he is related to a chimp, but he probably would admit that he is related to his own mother. "After all," he might say, "obviously I share 50 per cent. of my genes with her." But that estimate is wildly off the mark. Actually, he shares more than 99.9 per cent. of his genes with her -- because, in addition to the obvious one-half _direct_ ancestry, he shares almost _all_ of his ancestry with her in common, because _both_ his parents share almost identical common ancestry too. _Common ancestry_ is the only rational explanation, and it is the full explanation, for the near-total agreement between the gene-patterns of father, mother, and child. Common ancestry is also the only reasonable explanation for the astonishingly high degree of common ancestry between humans and other mammals. The genetic similarity of a man and a mouse, for example, is about 92 per cent. It is almost as if you had a 100-volume set of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, with each volume consisting of 1,000 pages of very small type on onionskin paper, 100,000 pages in all -- and then compared it to another, unknown, encyclopedia, and discovered that its first 92,000 pages were _absolutely identical_ to those in the _Britannica_ (to say nothing of the fact that the remaining 8,000 pages had a lot of similarities too). Could that be a random coincidence? Could the two encyclopedias have just by some sort of luck, or by the very nature of encyclopedia-writing, turned out to be _that_ similar? I don't think so. It would be obvious to anyone not inebriated by Maury Povich, Benny Hinn, or Jack Daniels that one was derived from the other -- or that both were derived from a common source. Mice and men share so many -- almost all, in fact -- of our genes because we share many, many common ancestors. Common genes equals common ancestors. The percentage of genes we share with other species is a measure of how many common ancestors we share with them -- and that itself is a measure of how long ago we diverged from them. Bearing that relationship in mind, consider that we share 44 per cent. of our genes in common with fruit flies -- 26 per cent. with yeast -- and almost 20 per cent. in common with a grain of wheat. That is proof as absolute as it is possible to get in this imperfect world that there was a time, long long ago, when our ancestors -- and wheat's ancestors -- _were the same species_. For even in a case where "only" the first twenty volumes of the encyclopedia -- 20,000 pages -- were word-for-word identical with our _Britannica_, who would be so foolish as to say they had no common source? With all good wishes, Kevin Alfred Strom. Damn, Kevin. We're dangerously close to agreeing here. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Humans evolved from a prehistoric SHARK from 300m years ago. | Shortwave | |||
Humans evolved from a prehistoric SHARK from 300m years ago. | Shortwave | |||
Humans have four years left to live on Earth | Shortwave |