Chickens started off as some sort of a 2-lb jungle foul which was bred by man into a 6 - 12 lb meat animal which still has the 2-lb bird's wings. That's why they can't fly any better than they do.
gungasnake wrote:Chickens started off as some sort of a 2-lb jungle foul which was bred by man into a 6 - 12 lb meat animal which still has the 2-lb bird's wings. That's why they can't fly any better than they do.
Don't be silly Gunga, chickens are actually the larval form of a super intelligent alien race who once manipulated the DNA of humans, before a virus wiped out the adult form of the chicken-aliens. Haven't you noticed how there are no super intelligent adult chickens left on the Earth? See, that just proves my point.
Get up in the morning,
Slaving for bread, Sir,
So that every mouth can be fed.
Poo-oor me, the Evolutionite . ..
My wife and my kids,
They are packed up and leave me.
Darling, she said, I was yours to be seen.
Poo-oor me, the Evolutionite . . .
Gunga, is it true that you're a Raelian? That would explain a lot...
think i can kind of answer this one...
After the formation of earth, the basic elements formed amino acids through simple chemical reactions, (evolution starts now)
obv im sure u realise that amino acids are the basic building blocks of life
Re: Question for evolutionites...
gungasnake wrote:How did DNA evolve, one small step at a time, as the basis of evolution and with it the cellular mechanism that assembles proteins using DNA as the template?
About the same way that today's airplanes evolved from the first simple plane built by the Wright brothers, by small successive changes, some of which worked and some of which did not.
FreeThought wrote:think i can kind of answer this one...
After the formation of earth, the basic elements formed amino acids through simple chemical reactions, (evolution starts now)
obv im sure u realise that amino acids are the basic building blocks of life
Nah, it's RNA, as I stated in my previous post. RNA can not only encode for things like DNA, but it can also form enzymes called RNAzymes.
That explains why only the most primitive organisms have RNA instead of DNA.
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Only religion claims to have all the answers, thereby negating the need for further investigation!
I recommend Mapping Human History by STeven Olson, a science journalist. The book is about the recent work done in genetics which proves humans belong to single a race. While it offers nothing on the evolution of DNA, it does explain a great deal, in layman's terms, about how mitochondrial DNA and the DNA found in the y chromosome work.
Then, gunga, you can go on to read more books that are just as real.
Well, I guess that proves it. Time to shut down my brain and head on into church for some of that old time religion. "Give me that old time religion, And it's good enough for me." YeeHaa and Aaaaaaaaamen!
I love the "Christian Geology" link, like some field of science is denominationally pre-determined. The link is good for a laugh on this pre-holiday weekend.
"Gap theory" is without any evidence, as is their Holocene/Pleistocene boundary "problem" They merely use a wild-ass discursive approach and make up "problems" where none exist.
Good thing we dont have to count on Creationists for any work to find oil.
I don't have my notebook with me, but, a recent book by two prominent scientists (one on the Harvard Med School faculty, the other on the faculty of U-C, Berkeley) discusses the fact that the many sub-divisions of the discipline of biology have worked separately for far too long, each making strides within the confines of their own narrow interests, but, not necessarily communicating with their colleagues in the broader areas of the discipline.
This means that not only are advances in biology difficult for professionals to keep abreast of, but, that it is almost impossible for the educated and interested lay person to know what exactly is going on.
That said, it is becoming more and more apparent that a systems approach explains differences. That features as disperate as a narwhal's tusk and an elephant's trunk are functionally analogous, that is, they serve the same purpose.
I have come to feel that the Intelligent Design people are barking up the wrong tree: the more I know about science, the less likely it is that a single designer -- no matter how intelligent -- created everything. It's superstition masquerading as science.
I still agree with Jon Stewart that the scrotum -- that is, the delicate testicles hanging loose outside the body cavity -- is sufficient evidence of either a lack of design or a lack of intelligence.
Or else he was looking for a way to distinguish us from a bluebird
And the kicker introduces itself to those boys who think they should have been born a girl.
Creationist "scientists" have been happy to put together a museum, but I suspect (and hope) they are little less keen to build a space shuttle.
The book I couldn't name the other day is, "The Plausibility of Life," by Harvard Medical School professor Marc Kisschner and U-C, Berkeley professor John Gerhart, published last year by Yale University Press.
Other scientists to consult, should one wish to avoid the superstition known as Intelligent Design, are Bruce Alberts, Daniel Hartl and my favorite, Theodesius Dobzhansky, who in 1973 said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
BTW, can you believe that these folks here, who have all been out of school for 20 or many more years, criticize education today?! Kids are being given a firmer footing in science than these folks were!
