The idea of people and trees being related is stupid because there is no scientific, empirical evidence that supports it. Are there fossils that bear aspects of human beings and non-living things, like rocks and trees? It's bad enough to say that humans evolved from other living creatures, but to say that living creatures and inanimate objects evolved from the same unicellular organism....? True evidence, please?
41 comments
Actually yes, there are fossils that contain plants... which ARE living things, in case you missed that memo.
We have roughly 60% of the same DNA as most plant life. We share a common ancestor with plants, monkeys, apes, dogs, bacteria, fungus and every other living thing on the planet. If that bothers you, too damn bad.
Rocks are certainly not living things, so of course they don't fossilize... they do contain fossils, though.
As frightening as you Fundies may find your sharing almost 99% of your DNA with chimpanzees, you share nearly 60% of your DNA with the nearest plant.
True evidence, please?
You mean evidence you wont ignore, write off as biased or post a link to some website which states openly that they refuse to accept any contradictory evidence 'disproving' said contradictory evidence? Sorry, it doesnt exist.
"The idea of people and trees being related is stupid because there is no scientific, empirical evidence that supports it."
It's Samuel L. Jackson Time:
"DNA motherfucker have you heard of it?!?!?"
I hope you have realised that trees are actually alive. Just because it doesn't move around doesn't mean its lifeless. Trees are more like us than rocks are. There is a lot of empirical evidence. If you had done any essays for biology classes you would have come across plenty evidence in the form of journal articles with graphs, pictures & all sorts of proof. Years & books of proof.
We have the same genetic code as plants, use the same 20 amino acids in our proteins, have nearly identical mitotic and meiotic processes, have cells that are surrounded by membranes made of a phospholipid bilayer, have mitochondria, have ribsomes with subunits encoded by genes with enormous sequence similarity, and additionally, have structural identity in the architecture of those ribosomes.
@Pule Thamex: Very pithy.
Trees are not inanimate objects, they are living things.
“The idea of people and trees being related is stupid because”
“there is no scientific, empirical evidence that supports it.”
“Are there fossils that bear aspects of human beings and non-living things, like rocks and trees?”
“It's bad enough to say that humans evolved from other living creatures, but to say that living creatures and inanimate objects evolved from the same unicellular organism....? True evidence, please?”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
