I believe science and the bible (not religion) complement each other, always have and always will. I sometimes think both sides are too close minded or hard headed to see it. The connection is there, I think is funny when people get excited when scientist discovers something with no proof just evidence and people hate on “Christians” for their evidence “the bible”. The bible proves it self with time and always will, the bible prophesied the “Big Brother” movement that is slowly becoming a window for the Anti-Christ domination. But science does not give the bible credit for that and never will. But to answer you question science discovery with proof have made my faith stronger because I see gods genius written all over it like DNA
As Science is moving ahead and discovering new things daily
- Thread starter JLMACN
- Start date
sigh...
I said that the last universal common ancestor (if such a thing existed which becomes uncertain once you realize how much horizontal gene transfer has been going on (and is still going on)) was an archaea-like unicellular organism which acquired endosymbiotic eubacteria (which became the mitochondria) and compartmentalized its cytoplasm . Multicellular animals split rom that lineage while several subsequent analogous events (phagocytosis of cyanobacteria or other photosynthesizing prokaryotes) giving rise to the different types of plants we see today
I said that the last universal common ancestor (if such a thing existed which becomes uncertain once you realize how much horizontal gene transfer has been going on (and is still going on)) was an archaea-like unicellular organism which acquired endosymbiotic eubacteria (which became the mitochondria) and compartmentalized its cytoplasm . Multicellular animals split rom that lineage while several subsequent analogous events (phagocytosis of cyanobacteria or other photosynthesizing prokaryotes) giving rise to the different types of plants we see today
the exact term is paleontology
Archaeology has nothing to do with the fossil record
somebody just demonstrated serious holes in his education
good that you admit it
What existed before evolution is called natural history from today's point of view
I've told you many many many times why modern biology and medicine are unimaginable without the theory of evolution, I don't plan to explain this to you again
Archaeology has nothing to do with the fossil record
somebody just demonstrated serious holes in his education
good that you admit it
What existed before evolution is called natural history from today's point of view
I've told you many many many times why modern biology and medicine are unimaginable without the theory of evolution, I don't plan to explain this to you again
No, somebody is just utilizing his Spin doctor abilities and jumping on minute details to use as an attempt to speak condescendingly, probably because it helps your self-esteem. Archaeology is a sub-set of Anthropology. Together Biology, Archaeology, and physical Anthropology are used to examine the theory of bio-cultural Human evolution.. Paleontology wasn't my concern, I'm not debating the existence of Dinosaurs, etc...
Then don't, you're not very good at communicating things anyways..
Then don't, you're not very good at communicating things anyways..
See, I have more important things than to sit here and teach high-school level biology
I am not going to type 10 000 words explaining you how multicellulairity appeared, you should know this
I will post the current molecular phylogeny, it contains most of the info you need
I suggest that you start with Choanoflagellates
I am not going to type 10 000 words explaining you how multicellulairity appeared, you should know this
I will post the current molecular phylogeny, it contains most of the info you need
I suggest that you start with Choanoflagellates
ThaG said:
See, I have more important things than to sit here and teach high-school level biology
I am not going to type 10 000 words explaining you how multicellulairity appeared, you should know this
I will post the current molecular phylogeny, it contains most of the info you need
I suggest that you start with Choanoflagellates
I am not going to type 10 000 words explaining you how multicellulairity appeared, you should know this
I will post the current molecular phylogeny, it contains most of the info you need
I suggest that you start with Choanoflagellates
lol thanks I'll get right on that lol
How did those things appear. Their FIRST existence can be explained?
Nobody said paleontology wasn't relevant to evolution theory, quote me or calm down.. I was simply speaking in the context of what I meant, as clarification. You use waaaaaay too many straw man arguments, maybe you just can't comprehend English, or you wrongly misinterpret people on purpose to give the illusion that you some how have the upper hand, but that's not going to work.. Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life forms, the only person confused is you..
Why are you typing "so what"? Do you even know why I posted? If you do tell me why I posted it.
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
I didn't say anything about dinosaurs
What are you talking about?