rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (10/04/84)
>> (Me) >>Why didn't the creator use the SAME molecules for the same functions in >>different criters (kinds or species). Take cytocrome, one of the respiratory >>enzymes, as an example. It performs exactly the same function in me, in a >>chimpanzee, and in the plants on my desk. Why does the ape's protein >>resemble mine almost exactly, while the plant's are much different. >>Remember that none of these are improvements. The variation in function >>is to small to measure. > (David Kantrowitz) >That's sounds very arrogant. Do you claim to know absolutely everything >about the differences between those two enzymes to believe the difference >insignificant? No. But I don't have to. You see, there are also pairs of enzymes with (measurably) different functions which in closely "related" species are more similar than enzymes performing the same functions in more "distant" species. In other words as far as protein structure is concerned it APPEARS that blood is thicker than water. Of course this argument dosn't prove anything beyond a doubt (no argument does). It is just an example of a correct prediction made by the theory of evolution. Show me the correct predictions made by creationism. >Years ago scientists believed the spleen to be an unimportant >organ, so they surgically removed it. Thank God, they didn't remove mine. I will (with great difficulty) resist temptation.... >Don't be so hasty to think that current scientific knowledge has the ultimate >say on anything. And if God is the author, how much more so. ANYONE who claims to have the ultimate say on anything should be treated with scepticism. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh