lestatdark said:
Want you to believe? Oh really?
Then I guess I must be getting fake results when I study conservation of RNAs through polymorfism chains between Archae and Eubacterya or the Epigenetic effect of hystone H1, H2A and H2B between hereditary lineages of multi-species. Heck, I must change my master's degree, since it's all lies.
i just dont see what any of this has to do with the notion that everything on earth has a common ancestor. yes, i see you have named some histone families. but because you can distinguish the different kinds and see which species can relate on that level DOES NOT mean that they have a common ancestor. it seems to me that it is kind of a leap. sorry if that makes me ignorant, but i just feel that id need more evidence before i came to that conclusion.
I've seen quite a lot of misinformation on this thread to have quite a few chuckles for the past weeks. Evolution is not simply "We came from a single archae bacteria that developed when the conditions of the Nitrogen and Carbon filled oceans of 3.5 Billions ago were jolted by the extreme conditions of the planet".
evolution can be defined (and i have seen it defined) in many many different ways, but in its simplest form, to my ignorant understanding, it is a change in frequency of a gene in a particular gene pool. if this is how evolution is defined, then that is certainly not something i have a problem with.
now this is a definition of 'the general theory of evolution' by dr. kirkwood at southampton university: it is a theory that all the living organisms of the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
are these not good working definitions? or are you just going to add more? because its already confusing as hell. when people are talking about evolution, they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.
To understand evolution you have to understand some basic genetic concepts. You have to understand polymorfisms, DNA and (much more importantly) RNA conservation, epigenetics, methylations, acylations and many other concepts.
well.. i do understand the basics. i can at least say that much for myself. i am still not 100% sold. am i just ignorant and i need to learn more?
Do you know that us, human, have a 90% homology in our mitochondrial RNA matrixes (produced by the mitochondrial DNA) in comparison with early pre-historic Archaebacteria? We're talking about having a rather similar code to organisms that lived far beyond the time of humans.
again, i cant look at this and say ok this is evidence that we have a common ancestor with archaebacteria. is this the conclusion that i am supposed to be coming to? if it is, i think it would be a little hasty.
If you look at evolution only on Darwin terms, then you're missing the rather huge picture that explains everything in much more detail: Genetics.
anyways, im just not sold that we have a common ancestor with all living things here on earth. that is all that i am saying. runa216 thinks that i dont believe because i have my head so far up my ass. i guess if i were just smarter, i would come to the same conclusion you guys are?
|
