Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!browngr!dk From: dk@browngr.UUCP (David Kantrowitz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: How about the future? Message-ID: <1373@browngr.UUCP> Date: Sun, 30-Sep-84 13:51:39 EDT Article-I.D.: browngr.1373 Posted: Sun Sep 30 13:51:39 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 20:24:51 EDT References: cvl.1382 Lines: 21 >> Baloney >> We are, I assme, talking about a creator postulated to be at least as >> intelligent as we are! It strikes me as strong evidence for a creator >> if similar functions are performed by similar molecules in distinct >> but similar animal/plant groups. >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. That's sounds very arrogant. Do you claim to know absolutely everything about the differences between those two enzymes to believe the difference insignificant? Years ago scientists believed the spleen to be an unimportant organ, so they surgically removed it. Thank God, they didn't remove mine. 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.