lpetrich

Except that the molecules do not look alike. Different species' versions of an gene with some function will have different sequences, and in many cases, one can construct a treelike hierarchy of gene similarity. The remarkable feature of such family trees is that they very often agree with evolutionary relationships inferred from examining macroscopic features.

Thus, chimps are much closer to our species than mice, which are closer than frogs, which are closer than fish, which are closer than flies, which are closer than yeast, which are closer than bacteria.

But why would a creator who can design from scratch and who had used a common design go through all the trouble to create a treelike pattern of gene similarity? Instead of using the exact same sequence for every gene with the same function?

Also, there are odd workarounds and design blunders present in abundance. Thus, early amniote (reptile, bird, mammal) embryos have gill bars, gill pouches, and blood vessels arranged for servicing gills. But as the embryo develops, all these structures get either used for something else or disappear. Is that elegant design?

Vertebrate eyes have their nerves in front of their photoreceptors; these nerves must cross the photoreceptor layer, creating a blind spot. However, squid and octopus eyes have their nerves behind their photoreceptors, and thus no blind spot.

Also, several lens proteins (crystallins) are originally metabolic enzymes. Why not design a special lens protein from scratch?

There are numerous cases of bones that start out separate and then fuse; for example, the hipbone is a set of fused bones that includes some vertebrae.

Flower parts are essentially modified leaves.

Arthropod legs are essentially antennae modified for walking, chewing, biting, grasping, and other functions.

CND

Does anyone else here that sciteach, with the comments he has made should be fired? Or at least given a different subject to teach (and definately not a science course). Otherwise, at least 30 children will be deprived of an education in biology.

scigirl

I have some questions for you, sciteach. . .

Did you realize that all that boring old fossil and DNA evidence (that you seem to sweep under the rug when it is approprate) is collected in the same exact fashion as evidence supporting theories about cancer, geology, meterology and other fields which you don't seem to have a problem with?

Are you really interesting in criticizing the process of science? If so, why just pick on evolution?

I suspect that you, like nearly all other creationists, pick on evolution because it contradicts with your bible. It has absolutely nothing to do with the data, because as you said earlier, "no amount of your data will prove otherwise."

So you already admit that even if we had a polaroid of an evolutionary process occuring you would still deny it because of your feelings!

Why are you even asking for the data then??

scigirl

Albion

Well, if it's a private church school where evolution is just taught because it has to be and creationism is the focus of the classes, then the teaching of creationism in science class as an alternative theory (interesting new definition of theory there) is legal, if both unfortunate and incorrect. If it's a public school, then I hope some of the parents complain.

Edited to say I was responding to CND there. Scigirl, you WILL interrupt!

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Hey Scigirl,

Imagine a population of words:
evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evolution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution evilution

Which one is the mutant?

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Mageth

The theory of evilution does not disprove God, it is just a stout bulwark for those who are already predisposed not to believe in a divine authority. This is what I meant by data doesnt convince, it just deepens already held convictions on both sides of the fence.

Well, if evolution is true, it pretty much knocks over Genesis 1-3 creation. And the Garden of Eden. And Original Sin. And the need for redemption. And soon the whole row of dominoes falls.

I was a believer once, and the irrefutalbe evidence for evolution knocked over the first domino for me.

scigirl

I demand that RufusAtticus be BANNED!

scigirl

Oh wait a minute - that means more work for me, Kevin and pz. Nevermind!



scigirl

RufusAtticus

Well, not all Christian's base their faith on a historic interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

Neruda

Sciteach: kids, I don't know nuthin' 'bout no biology, so instead let me teach you about Jesus!

Kids: yes please, we're young and impressionistic and probably in the bible belt, please poison our minds against rational thought and science!

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Why are you even here, sciteach? I mean, really?

K

CND:

If sciteach teaches in the public school system, then, yes, I do believe he/she should be fired.

The Hindus have a very intricate system of Gods that they use to explain nature. I wonder if sciteach would like this taught in physics and chemistry classes as another alternative.