Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 5)
Message-ID: <933@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 14:24:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.933
Posted: Mon Apr 29 14:24:53 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 06:29:42 EDT
References: <332@iham1.UUCP> <790@mhuxt.UUCP> <813@bunker.UUCP> <209@phri.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
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?  [SONNTAG]
> 
>>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. [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]

No, no, no.  That would involve looking at and thoroughly examining
existing evidence to draw conclusions, rather than getting the gospel
truth from a book.  What a ridiculous idea!
-- 
Meet the new wave, same as the old wave...
      				Rich Rosen     ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr