Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (25954)	11/15/1998 5:20:00 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

E, Well, let's think about this. Fossil evidence is found of a species that is similar to another species we know about. The DNA is also similar so we can make a tree and then say what? This came first, then this, then this? How could any such assumption be made? What is the evidence that either came first. The time assumption has to be thrown out. The fact that a found species is extinct does not lead to the conclusion it came before another similar species. They both could as easily have started at the same time. The dating of the sediment the fossil was found in does not matter either. No assumption can be made about which came first or if both came at the same time. The time element cannot be determined in the cycle of that species. They could have all been created at the same time. Some died out in the process of competing in the environment, others survived. The DNA of a chimp and the DNA of a human are similar. Does that mean that we came from a chimp or the chimps are the evolutionary extension of humans <gg>? Does it mean we came from any other species? It doesn't when you consider what DNA is. If I were God and I was populating the earth I would have infinite choices. But if I wanted a certain type of species say mammal with four legs, 1200 lbs. and it's a horse. Another mammal 1200 lbs. is a cow, another a bear. I would say the same characteristics of the DNA would be apparent to a certain extent to make all three with needed variations. But the premise that the similarity means one evolved from the other has nothing to do with the equation. The same with humans and chimps. The same with a large horse and a small horse. The more similar the animal, the more similar the DNA. But still not the same species, still not evolved one from another. We just can't make that jump without any evidence. What is being called evidence is not. There are far too many assumptions being made. Science is not built on assumptions, not good science. No DNA has mutated on it's own into a better form that is beneficial to the organism. DNA is fixed, it doesn't change. If it does mutate it is nearly always a bad thing. Your friend is repeating something he learned. He did not do the science. He is assuming that they did it right. I assert they did not. There is no direct evidence that any species was ever any other species in the past. A lot of assumptions have to be made to make that claim. Assumptions are not good science. The problem is the science is being done to prove an already determined outcome. They are trying to prove what they already believe. Bob