One-Fourth of DNA Born by 2.8 Billion Years Ago

Some great replys and thoughts. Thanks all.

You have given me plenty to mull over tonight. lol

While fascinating, if these two researchers are "computational biologists", doesn't that mean that this is what their computer simulations told them?

Lawrence David (Computational Biology & Microbial Genomics) B.S. Columbia University, Ph.D. Massachusetts

Harvard Senior/ Junior Fellows

and from Eric Alm's faculty page:

Research in my group includes both computational/theoretical and experimental approaches to understanding the evolution of microorganisms, emphasizing a 'systems-level' perspective. Some areas of special interest include:

Eric's page


Obviously these dudes studied much harder than I did.

Originally posted by anon72


Wow, simply wow. I think this totally blows the Western religion theories out of the water. About us only being here a few thousand years.

www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have no idea why this blows the W relig out of the water. Think about it. Case example: lab scientist creates new lifeform. Observer: new lifeform develops over billions of years, does scientific test to prove it. Next Case example: coal bed forms over period of three hours Observer: coal bed forms over millions of years.

Frankly, if God wanted to make it all in 1/10000000000 of a second, and make it look old, I'm pretty sure He can do whatever the **ll He wants. That, my friend, is why we call Him God. Matter of fact, He could have made it all 100 years ago, including the "history" and you wouldn't know the difference, anyway. You were not alive to see it.

And what if you were alive to see it. Do you really know if you saw it or not? Do you really know if you exist or not?

I wouldn't be too hasty to condemn those of us who believe that God exists and He can do whatever the **ll He wants.

reply to post by anon72


I'm glad you posted the article, but the majority of replies here seem to indicate that most of you do not understand what it is about.

This is not evidence of advanced civilizations or even humans being around a billion or so years ago.

i think theyre taking it all too personal.....
But i like where Fox was going with his future comment...perhaps the very broadest of strokes predicted from the smallest of clues
I depebs on the matchup though,,all correlations have to be mapped i think, but why not?

So does this mean evolution could not be? I wonder if we have genes in us from billions of years ago? How could that be? Hasn't the earth gone threw multiple wipe outs?

Thanks for the the thread. You really have to think...at what point do we begin to question all the holes in the story that is supposedly our past? Maybe the whole "ancient aliens" thing isn't so strange after all.

Why in the world is an article about an awesome scientific discovery littered with comments about religion? Can we not just be happy that we learned something new and ooh-and-ah over an awesome scientific find?

Originally posted by yadda333
reply to post by anon72

 

I'm glad you posted the article, but the majority of replies here seem to indicate that most of you do not understand what it is about.

This is not evidence of advanced civilizations or even humans being around a billion or so years ago.

Actually, I completley understand what this means, and you're correct, it proves zero about "ancient aliens", etc

What it DOES prove is that the vast majority of Americans are wrong about the length of our history, which most believe is about 6,000 years. The vast majority of our historical writings have vast holes, full of unsupported thoughts that are accepted without doubt by the scientific community because they don't want to find something that would show that the entire body of historical work is incorrect, and those two things would be 1)ancient aliens 2)proof of a highly advanced past society.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


Seriously. Science does not support religion. at all. can you tell how this this proves intelligent design? to any degree.

All religion is baseless nonsense only supported by the statements of man and open "it seems" to interpretation.

How many more scientific advancements do we need before this archaic belief system is eradicated and we can move forward towards greater things.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
Can our genes predict the future?

No.

Species used to have to follow laws of nature to reproduce. Now we have certain races of humans who can no longer have natural child births. C-Sections will allow them to reproduce.....whereas hundreds of years ago those bad gene pools would have died off.

Our technology will suppress the natural selection that used to exist on Earth...and our Gene pool will become polluted with bad genetics that were supposed to die off....and in the end destroy our very DNA.

reply to post by Pervius

Our technology will suppress the natural selection that used to exist on Earth...and our Gene pool will become polluted with bad genetics that were supposed to die off....and in the end destroy our very DNA.

Now that says it all. I never thought of it like the way you stated it. Bingo.

At what point will the DNA get so messed up that the concept of only the strong survive is nothing but an old wives tale..

Originally posted by Crutchley29Seriously. Science does not support religion. at all. can you tell how this this proves intelligent design? to any degree.

Explain to me again how cold scientific fact rules out the possibility of a "God" or master designer? Oh wait, it's called a "matter of faith"!

I understand how a microwave works, but given the materials I doubt I could make one. Just because I know how to make a microwave (science) doesn't mean it wasn't constructed in a factory (God).

reply to post by projectvxn


Jesus didn't ride dinosaurs? Well thank you for ruining my faith.

i wonder if this sudden increase of genomic sequences could be correlated to the advent of intracellular signalling such as the nervous system.

more info HERE.