Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!cbosgd!ihnp4!bbncca!sdyer From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: How about the future? Message-ID: <955@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 01:49:35 EDT Article-I.D.: bbncca.955 Posted: Mon Sep 24 01:49:35 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 05:29:02 EDT References: <1323@ucla-cs.ARPA> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 23 Of course, the experiment you allude to has been performed between many species, the most notable being comparisons between chimpanzee and human hemoglobin molecules, which differ only by a few amino acids in several subunits; for the most part they are alike. And, as you say, "relatedness" predicts the number of similarities or differences between proteins. On the other hand, I'm not sure just how a creationist is supposed to react to this, other than claim that God made it that way. Just what DOES a creationist believe anyway? I've seen statements as to what they don't believe, but I'm still waiting for someone to claim with a straight face that the earth is 6000 years old. Or that it is billions of years old, except that once the earth became habitable, God temporarily rescinded the laws of physics and suddenly placed all our present day plants and animals, not to mention Adam and Eve, here. Or some variant. Naturally, I'm not trying to place words in anyone's mouth. What CAN one say from a creationist's stand with any certainty? It still sounds like religion to me... -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA