Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site phri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!timeinc!phri!fritz
From: fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 5)
Message-ID: <209@phri.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 14:14:28 EST
Article-I.D.: phri.209
Posted: Mon Apr 22 14:14:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 03:02:07 EST
References: <332@iham1.UUCP> <790@mhuxt.UUCP> <813@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 22

> >     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?
> > Are we supposed to write this off to coincidence, or should we assume that
> > God set things up this way in order to fool us into thinking that evolution
> > is correct?
> 
> 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.
> 
> > Jeff Sonntag
> > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
> 
> Gary Samuelson

How about if we say species that resemble one another in physical
characteristics(i.e. man and apes, or, less controversialy, similar
species of, oh let's say bears)

Dave Fritzinger