Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to We've heard much talk about creationism versus evolution but no one has
JanesOpinion - that explanation is as good as any when we get down to it
As Gubby reminded us in his comment, all species on earth share some common DNA as well having many common traits....both suggesting some form of common origin for all living things. But as I mentioned in the post, the two prevailing schools of thought have either God doing it all, or a natural evolutionary process doing it all. I don't feel that a third possibility in an influencing event, especially in conjunction with one, or both, of the other two possibilities is that unrealistic.
posted by
gomedome
on December 13, 2005 at 7:15 PM
| link to this | reply
I had a history professor suggest many years ago that perhaps God experimented with apes first a few hundred thousand millenia or so before finally creating humans. And for whatever reason unbeknownst to humanity, God chose not to discuss that little experiment in the Bible. Who knows? Certainly not something I lose sleep over but nonetheless, Gome, you ask an excellent question.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on December 13, 2005 at 6:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Gubby -- that's more or less the prevailing school of thought
and for the most part I tend to lean towards evolution from a common gene pool for the related species of apes and homonids but the theories are incomplete. I throw up "event influence" more as a means of offering something else but with the full concession that my theory is just a full of holes as the next guy's.
posted by
gomedome
on December 12, 2005 at 10:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Well, naturalists studying fossil remains generally agree that there was one common ancestor that branched in the family tree into humans, apes, neanderthals and so on.
The DNA percentage, in fact, shouldn't be so surprising. Apparently we share about 90% with flies (I can't remember the exact number, but it was on those lines). It seems like either DNA doesn't hold so much of the information as we think (and we are built basically by the mother with edits upon the lines of what it does hold) or DNA is filled with a load of useless junk which never got removed, because survival of the fittest had more important things on mind.
posted by
Gubby
on December 12, 2005 at 10:08 PM
| link to this | reply
and speaking of DNA
odd how much variety can arise with such small variation.
we look at dogs, whose DNA is identical to wolves, and yet come in so many varied forms.
horses
cattle
oh yes.
there is one plant that demonstrates evolution.
at least four distinct plants have arisen from one ancestor.
broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, and a similar plant.
these all are now distinct "species"(?) -- brand new (in cosmic terms), brought about by human effort, but new lines nonetheless.
I'd like to say rudabaga (sp?) but I don't think that's the plant -- but i do like saying it.
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 12, 2005 at 2:00 PM
| link to this | reply
about species that still exist
whether apes or giraffes or elephants or wolves or coelecanths
they still exist because they thrive in their environment. they are successful.
it is the unsuccessful, for one reason or another, that fail to continue to exist.
some were unsuccessful at avoiding human predation.
the question of why weren't other homo species unsuccessful also arises.
competition for the same resources?
we can look at the competition between Cro-Magnon (modern homo sapiens) and Neanderthal to find maybe a clue to that -- when Cro-Magnon migrated out of Africa, they displaced Neanderthal to extinction. Interaction between competing species?
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 12, 2005 at 1:54 PM
| link to this | reply