A monomeric though/segement of my worldview: Common Ancestor(s)
I am studying genetics this semester in an attempt to get a minor in biology. Also, in one of my nursing classes, and for clinical, we are studying maternity and care of the mothers and infants. Isn't that ironic, maternity and genetics in the same semester! Anyway......
Of course I can't be suited to just study what the genetics textbook has to tell; I like biology, and my mind has to wander every which direction and think up all kinds of far out stuff. One of these is a thought, or maybe you could call it a hypotheses, that I stumbled across in my daydreaming. If meiosis of DNA results in the joining of individual strands of DNA donated from the gametes of seperately existing organisms, does this indicate that life of all oranisms could not have come from one common ancestor? This would require the existence of at least TWO common ancestors. For evolution to be a valid theory that explains the origin of species, it would have had to simultaneously occur twice in a complementary fasion for life to exist and flourish as we know it. In other words, evolution would have had to result in a male and a female being at the same time - thereby doubly increasing the improbability of it occurence.
Oh, I know, somebody probably already thought of this, but it's the first time I ever considered this concept, and I didn't hear it from someone else. I haven't completely thought this through to its entirety yet, but its one of those thoughts that popped into my head all of a sudden while studying. If this concept has intrigued you, then enjoy your pondering! :-) Tell me, what do you think of this concept?
I can accept part of the theory of evolution, the theory that explains mutations, and how over centuries (not eons) some organism might mutate and as a result survive in their surroundings, but I only to a reasonable extent. Not in the sense of unsound statistics can I accept that theory. So, evolution/mutation of life forms over time? Maybe. As an explanation for an origin of any organism? I doubt it.
An alternative consideration: Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Oh, one more thing....If you are not already familiar with this website, look at the greeting at the top of this page, and you will find instructions on how to reply to this post. However, while I do appreciate everyone's perspective and attempt to approach a philosophical and/or scientific inquiry, any comments with profanity or blasphemy will be edited, abrigded, or outright deleted altogether. Please, do comment though.
Of course I can't be suited to just study what the genetics textbook has to tell; I like biology, and my mind has to wander every which direction and think up all kinds of far out stuff. One of these is a thought, or maybe you could call it a hypotheses, that I stumbled across in my daydreaming. If meiosis of DNA results in the joining of individual strands of DNA donated from the gametes of seperately existing organisms, does this indicate that life of all oranisms could not have come from one common ancestor? This would require the existence of at least TWO common ancestors. For evolution to be a valid theory that explains the origin of species, it would have had to simultaneously occur twice in a complementary fasion for life to exist and flourish as we know it. In other words, evolution would have had to result in a male and a female being at the same time - thereby doubly increasing the improbability of it occurence.
Oh, I know, somebody probably already thought of this, but it's the first time I ever considered this concept, and I didn't hear it from someone else. I haven't completely thought this through to its entirety yet, but its one of those thoughts that popped into my head all of a sudden while studying. If this concept has intrigued you, then enjoy your pondering! :-) Tell me, what do you think of this concept?
I can accept part of the theory of evolution, the theory that explains mutations, and how over centuries (not eons) some organism might mutate and as a result survive in their surroundings, but I only to a reasonable extent. Not in the sense of unsound statistics can I accept that theory. So, evolution/mutation of life forms over time? Maybe. As an explanation for an origin of any organism? I doubt it.
An alternative consideration: Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Oh, one more thing....If you are not already familiar with this website, look at the greeting at the top of this page, and you will find instructions on how to reply to this post. However, while I do appreciate everyone's perspective and attempt to approach a philosophical and/or scientific inquiry, any comments with profanity or blasphemy will be edited, abrigded, or outright deleted altogether. Please, do comment though.
posted by GKStauffer at 02:47
4 comments
