Skip to comments.
Human Evolution: Tale of the Y
newsweek ^
| 8/8/08
| Sharon Begley
Posted on 08/10/2008 4:21:37 AM PDT by Soliton
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: Soliton
Fossils are remnants of traits expressed by genes. We can now look directly at the genetics behind those traits. The fossil record isn't necessary anymore but it is still very interesting and very useful...Like I said, 10 decades of devotion to a notion that failed, so it is abandoned.
But wait until the next "fossil proof" is discovered, and it will be all the rage. :) Cracks me up.
To: hellbender
An extremely frightening statement, from a scientific perspective. We can ignore the only evidence we have of extinct life forms for billions of years, because our theory is perfect and must remain unchallenged.I didn't even imply any of that
22
posted on
08/10/2008 8:32:29 AM PDT
by
Soliton
(> 100)
To: Soliton
All life on earth has a common ancestor Said with such confidence.
Why only one ancestor? Why couldn't life have come about from non-life more than once? Because that's just too hard to believe? Don't have sufficient faith for that?
23
posted on
08/10/2008 8:32:47 AM PDT
by
Theo
(Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
To: hellbender
That's very similar to the Global Warming cultists, who say "the case in closed" because their computer models say so. yes.
To: Theo
The physical evidence for a Creator creating according to the Scriptural account is not lacking.Please provide some. No one else will
25
posted on
08/10/2008 8:33:50 AM PDT
by
Soliton
(> 100)
To: Theo
Why only one ancestor? Why couldn't life have come about from non-life more than once? Because that's just too hard to believe? Don't have sufficient faith for that?It may have, but the DNA protocol suggests that existing life has a common evolutionary beginning.
26
posted on
08/10/2008 8:35:48 AM PDT
by
Soliton
(> 100)
To: Recovering_Democrat
Like I said, 10 decades of devotion to a notion that failed, so it is abandoned. The fossil record agrees very closly with the theory of evolution. Genetics however is the new frontier. Science progresses this way.
27
posted on
08/10/2008 8:38:08 AM PDT
by
Soliton
(> 100)
To: hellbender
Notice that the article merely "catalogues" differences, it does not prove anything about the process which led to those differences. The article explains the types of genetic changes too. We know how those changes occur. Theoretically we could backtrack reversing those changes and recreate our common ancestor with chimpanzees. They will some day.
28
posted on
08/10/2008 8:42:04 AM PDT
by
Soliton
(> 100)
To: Soliton
Your knowledge on evolutionary models is certainly profound. One could say that such steadfast, unwavering logic needs no further advancement nor refinement; it is in a word, perfect. I applaud you on your capacity to avoid smugness.
29
posted on
08/10/2008 8:43:53 AM PDT
by
Thommas
(The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
To: Thommas
I applaud you on your capacity to avoid smugness.It's a God given talent
30
posted on
08/10/2008 8:45:21 AM PDT
by
Soliton
(> 100)
To: Soliton
31
posted on
08/10/2008 8:48:37 AM PDT
by
Thommas
(The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
To: Soliton
Don’t you love all the hits and whispers that evolution is dead? Where were all these experts when they were needed at Dover?
32
posted on
08/10/2008 8:50:53 AM PDT
by
js1138
33
posted on
08/10/2008 9:00:47 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______Profile hasn't been updated since Friday, May 30, 2008)
To: js1138
Dont you love all the hits and whispers that evolution is dead? Where were all these experts when they were needed at Dover?They are only parroting creationist talking points. It's the same old 4 or 5 things that get answered over and over again and then they bring them up again.
34
posted on
08/10/2008 9:14:32 AM PDT
by
Soliton
(> 100)
To: js1138
Dont you love all the hits and whispers that evolution is dead? Where were all these experts when they were needed at Dover? At Dover they had to testify under oath.
35
posted on
08/10/2008 9:16:00 AM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
Ah yes, when it comes to testifying under oath, the cdesign proponentsists can all be found hiding under the nearest rock.
Dembsky was paid $20,000 to testify at Dover, but didn’t show. He kept the money.
36
posted on
08/10/2008 9:18:28 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: Coyoteman
>At Dover they had to testify under oath.
At Dover the judge was in the bag for the evolosers...
To: Soliton
... the DNA protocol suggests that existing life has a common evolutionary beginning. Again, why? Because it's such a miraculously impossibility that it can even come about by random chance? Once is incredible enough; twice would be beyond reason to accept?
38
posted on
08/10/2008 9:25:51 AM PDT
by
Theo
(Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
To: Soliton
Let me ask you a question, Soliton: Must you see something in order to believe its reality? Must something be measured and tested by scientific method before you’ll trust in its veracity?
39
posted on
08/10/2008 9:27:04 AM PDT
by
Theo
(Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
To: Theo
Must you see something in order to believe its reality? Must something be measured and tested by scientific method before youll trust in its veracity?How would you apply this question to the Greek gods, or the Hindu, or to Islam, or to scientology?
40
posted on
08/10/2008 9:28:56 AM PDT
by
js1138
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson