kendalla@iddic.UUCP (Kendall Auel) (08/22/85)
The argument has been going back and forth, "did god create man, or did man evolve?" I don't think either side is going to give in, but I do think there is something both sides can agree on. Whether or not God created man (and everything else), all life forms are theoretically capable of evolving. That is, any life form can *theoretically* mutate into a form which is itself capable of reproduction. All living things have as their basic identifying characteristic a genetic code. The chemical building blocks of this code are the same for nearly all life forms; only the sequence and quantities differ. If this code gets a little scrambled during the process of reproduction, it is (in theory) possible to end up producing a very different thing from the parent. It is also possible (in theory) that this new thing may be able to continue reproducing. Isn't this what is meant by "genetic evolution"? Can we all agree on this? I'm not saying that such a process has ever occurred in reality. And I'm not saying that just because it can happen means that this is the way Homo Sapiens appeared on Earth. But evolution is a *possibility*, right? Kendall Auel Graphics Workstations Division Tektronix, Inc. These are not the views of my employer. They are the views of a mad space alien, exiled from his home planet eons ago, who has been performing illegal experiments in secret on a planet at the outer reaches of the galaxy.
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (08/23/85)
In article <2140@iddic.UUCP> kendalla@iddic.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes: >All living things have as their basic identifying characteristic a >genetic code. The chemical building blocks of this code are the same for >nearly all life forms; only the sequence and quantities differ. If >this code gets a little scrambled during the process of reproduction, >it is (in theory) possible to end up producing a very different thing >from the parent. It is also possible (in theory) that this new thing >may be able to continue reproducing. Isn't this what is meant by >"genetic evolution"? > >Can we all agree on this? > >Kendall Auel My college genetics professor used the term "population genetics" instead of "evolution" to describe changes in species over time. That way, he could teach the subject instead of arguing with staunch 7-literal-day creationists, none of whom ever argued the validity of "population genetics", but who would surely have screamed had the professor used the term "evolution". charli