are the horse and chicken related?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: are the horse and chicken related?

Post by AFJ » Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:35 pm

I personally have a problem with this type of "tracing" of our evolutionary past using DNA. Right from the beginning of the geologic timescale there is a problem if you use this thinking as a means to "prove" evolution. The problem is that the earliest life forms (cyanobacteria, the archaeans, and eukaryota) are genetically speaking completely different. They appear consecutively in the fossil record/geologic time scale and are dated consecutively.

They are so genetically different scientists now use a 5 kingdom system to classify life. Bacteria and archaens are two DIFFERENT kingdoms of classification. Eukaryota contains the two traditional kingdoms of plant and animal along with fungi and protists being another kingdom. I do not know if all scientists recognize the 5 kingdom system, but some do as far back as the 70's. The point is that they are genetically worlds apart.

Cyanobacteria (found in the Archaean age--supposedly when life first appeared) are found to be the oldest known fossils, found in archaean age rocks from Australia dated at 3.5 billion years old. Cyanobacteria are still alive today (how?--is a question, another issue), so their DNA can be studied.

Archaeans are in the next geologic age (Protereozoic). They are dated at about 1.8 B to 2.5 B, are alive today (how?) and weren't discovered (alive) until the late 70's. Here is a quote from the University of Cal. Museum of Paleontology's website, speaking on the archaeans--"biochemically and genetically, they are as different from bacteria as you are."

Then the eukaryota started appearing about 1.8 billion years ago. They are fungi and protists, but also all flora and fauna in the later protereozoic. Protereozoic goes from 2500M to 543M years ago.

These are all very very diverse genetically and are the beginning of life evolutionarily speaking. If the beginning of life had such genetic diversity and evolved from a common ancestor, then how can someone use genetic resemblance as an argument for evolutionary tracing in DNA. Evolutionary tracing would seem to have no foundation since the so-called first species are kingdoms apart.

Genetic resemblance, one could argue, could be considered evidence of a common designer, especially in light of the afore mentioned information. This info is mainstream evolutionary thought and did not come from creationist literature.

User avatar
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Post by alextemplet » Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:28 pm

First of all, let me clarify that fungi and protists are not in the same kingdom but two separate kingdoms. That said, as different as various kingdoms are, it would be wrong to say that there are no similarities. Archaeans, for example, share many important traits (the structure of their ribosomes, for example) with eukaryotes. Also consider the evidence for how each domain could've evolved from earlier forms (such as the endosymbiotic theory and the RNA world hypothesis), and the conclusions are pretty solid, in my opinion.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

#2 Total Post Count

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests