Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 5)
Message-ID: <798@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 15:59:44 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.798
Posted: Mon Apr 22 15:59:44 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 06:34:47 EST
References: <332@iham1.UUCP> <790@mhuxt.UUCP> <813@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 34

> >     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
> 
> Gary Samuelson

     Since you don't seem to understand what I meant, I'll try again.  Long
before any biochemical similarities were studied, people noticed that some
species shared many common traits, while other sets of species shared few.
For example, men and apes share many common traits, while men and bullfrogs
share far fewer.  Then, biochemistry advanced far enough to be a useful 
science, someone got the bright idea to check and see if sets of species
like men and apes, which share common traits might also be very similar
biochemically.  It turned out that sets of species which share more common
traits are more similar biochemically.  This was easily predicted by evolution,
since sets of species which share more common traits are thought to have
more recent common ancestors.  
     If creation is correct, why is it that species which share many common
physical characteristics also have many more biochemical similarities than
randomly selected sets of species?  
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "But if we took out the bones, it wouldn't be crunchy, now, would it?"