First large-scale test confirms Darwin's theory of common ancestry

[RainDog]

http://www.physorg.com/news192882557.html

The results of the study confirm that Darwin had it right all along. In his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, the British naturalist proposed that, "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form." Over the last century and a half, qualitative evidence for this theory has steadily grown, in the numerous, surprising transitional forms found in the fossil record, for example, and in the identification of sweeping fundamental biological similarities at the molecular level.

Still, rumblings among some evolutionary biologists have recently emerged questioning whether the evolutionary relationships among living organisms are best described by a single "family tree" or rather by multiple, interconnected trees—a "web of life." Recent molecular evidence indicates that primordial life may have undergone rampant horizontal gene transfer, which occurs frequently today when single-celled organisms swap genes using mechanisms other than usual organismal reproduction. In that case, some scientists argue, early evolutionary relationships were web-like, making it possible that life sprang up independently from many ancestors.

According to biochemist Douglas Theobald, it doesn't really matter. "Let's say life originated independently multiple times, which UCA allows is possible," said Theobald. "If so, the theory holds that a bottleneck occurred in evolution, with descendants of only one of the independent origins surviving until the present. Alternatively, separate populations could have merged, by exchanging enough genes over time to become a single species that eventually was ancestral to us all. Either way, all of life would still be genetically related.

...creationism just keeps going down like a five dollah crack ho.

[hobbit709]

1. Science schmience-all we need is the bible.

The idiots minds are made up, don't confuse them with FACTS.

[RainDog]

2. oh yeah, somebody calling him/herself a hobbit WOULD say that. lol. n/t

[Possumpoint]

3. However It Happened

It appears that your contention is that God didn't have a guiding hand in it. Know that for sure?

[EOTE]

4. I see nothing that suggests that.

I think the OP is simply saying that there is absolutely no factual basis for creationism and there are many, many holes in it. That's not to say that God didn't have a guiding hand in Evolution. Though there's really no evidence to suggest that he did, either.

[RainDog]

5. I'm not a theologian. And science isn't about theology.

the point of the article is that there is absolutely NO BASIS IN REALITY for creationism (aka intelligent design.) ID, as the Dover court case proved, is merely creationism in less tawdry threads..i.e. the guy who coined the phrase cut and pasted it onto creationism texts.

if god wanted to create life as a primordial soup, good for her. I like soup!

she didn't need to do this, however, because natural mechanisms are in place that cause this soup. if you want to worship nature, you are following a long and noble tradition.

however, the facts do indicate that genesis is a myth - that any literal interpretation of the bible is akin to the belief that masturbation (taterguy... you probably won't read this, but if you do... smile...) causes people to grow hair on the palms of their hands.

both ideas are born from ignorance and have no place in any discussion of science.

and any politician who wants to lead the most powerful nation in the world who also believes in creationism is unfit for the job (that's you, Huckabee... along with other brain dead republicans.)

[kwolf68]

6. Good job RainDog

My feelings exactly.

I will say science is still debating all the processes, but that's what science does...it tests, observes, collects data, and peer reviews it.

Mosaic Evolution is something I really believe very plausible, but like much of science it takes patience, study, and absolutely NO prejudices, which is why the bible must remain in churches and not anywhere near the science buildings on any institution that claims itself to be one of learning.

[RainDog]

7. thanks! n/t

[eridani]

18. True, but I still have good results going after creationists using theology

Why not invade their territory? They do it often enough to science. The argument is simple and goes back to St. Augustine. Assume for the purposes of argument that God exists. Given all the usual attributes of God, it is logically impossible for him/her to both be smart enough to invent the operating system of the universe and simultaneously be stupid enough to get it wrong on the first try. Creationism assumes that a God-created system of natural law is inadequate to account for life without extra fiddling around, which is as logically inconsistent as saying that God could create a square circle.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Yup.

[sudopod]

10. Of course not. Great Cthulhu did though.

I know it because the Necronomicon told me so.

[RainDog]

11. literalists have a harder and harder time b/c they hold beliefs that are easily disproven

the "god in the gaps" argument is pretty lame, if you look at its history.

[Rex]

19. Science is about facts not faith.

That is why you can never know something for sure in science until it has been tested and retested. Faith on the other hand means you don't have to prove anything, you just believe without any facts or evidence. Is there something more - maybe, maybe not. IMO, for man to think it is 'his' God out of all the possibilities in the Universe is arrogant to say the least.

[HuckleB]

9. Kick and Recommend.

[RainDog]

12. thanks. another kickety here. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. kick and recommend

[Soylent Brice]

14. K&R

[SidDithers]

15. K&R...

science ftw.

Sid

[Scurrilous]

16. K & R

:thumbsup:

[RainDog]

17. kick for the night crew n/t