Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov
From: dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 5)
Message-ID: <3570016@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 12:19:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.3570016
Posted: Sat Apr 20 12:19:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 06:58:59 EST
References: <332@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 28

[]

>>     What about all of the biochemical evidence showing that enzymes from
>> closely related species are much more similar to each other than enzymes
>> which perform the same function in other, more distantly related species?
>
>Actually, I write it off as circular reasoning.  "Closely related
>species?"  Assuming that species are "related," and further that
>some such relations are "close" and others are "distant" sounds
>like you have assumed that which you wish to prove.

First of all, I must correct the original note. The prediction evolution
makes, which is confirmed by the evidence, is that species which diverged
later will have proteins which are more similar than species which
diverged earlier. So the criterion is when species diverged, not how
similar they are.

Second, to address the charge of circular reasoning in the reply,
the times when species diverged were not assumed, but were deduced
from other evidence such as the fossil record, long before the
biochemical evidence became available. This, by the way, is an
example of an easily falsifiable prediction made by evolution.
If, for example bullfrog hemoglobin was closer to human hemoglobin
than chimpanzee hemoglobin, this would pose a very serious problem
for evolution. And likewise, any one of thousands of other such
examples could falsify evolution - but none have.

Isaac Dimitrovsky