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except that once the earth became habitable, God temporarily rescinded the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