ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,12:11) | You guys have been preaching to me about how similar organisms have similar genetic sequences, i.e. chimps and humans are within 1.5% of each other, right? And you are correct. Similar homologies yield similar genetics. I agree with you there.
But now you are telling a new whopper!
You really want me to believe that a 500 myo bacterium (let's say we could get some DNA from a bacterium fossil) is much different than a modern bacterium? Now all of a sudden, instead of similar homologies yielding similar genetics, you're telling me "Oh yes, ancient bacteria LOOKED very similar to modern bacteria, but we are quite sure that their genetics would be far different ... probably the same 65% difference."
Come on, guys! This is ridiculous! You are GUESSING what ancient bacterial genetics might have been like and you are CONTRADICTING the guideline you just finished giving me about similar morphologies=similar genetics.
What in the world? |
Dave, Dave, Dave. Where are you getting this "looks similar means they have similar genotypes"? What does that have to do with evolutionary theory? No one has said anything at all about similar morphologies here. It's a complete non-sequitor.
What people have been saying is that all eukaryotes living today are equally distantly-related to all bacteria living today. What does that have to do with morphology? Do insects and jellyfish look anything alike? Do either one of them look anything like a redwood? What does appearance have to do with it? The point is, all are descended from a common ancestor that diverged once from bacteria, and therefore all three are equally distant genetically from bacteria.
No wonder everyone here thinks they're talking to, well, not a macaque; that would be insulting to a macaque.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
