>> Agreed. Gish points out:
>> "A creationist would also expect many biochemical similarities in all
>> living organisms. We all drink the same water, breathe the same air,
>> and eat the same food. Supposing, on the other hand, God had made
>> plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines,
>> pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino
>> acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with
>> a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc. What could we eat? We
>> couldn't eat plants; we couldn't eat animals; all we could eat would
>> be each other! Obviously, that wouldn't work. All of the key
>> molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same. The
>> metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical
>> principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways
>> would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular
>> internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must
>> function." (Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics",
>> 1993,
>> Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, p277)
I find this unconvincing. Is it necessary that our food use the same
molecules as we do? I thought the most important thing was that it
contain energy tied up in chemical bonds.
Gish mentions sugars above. Are they found in animals as well as
plants? If not, Gish has falsified his own claim, since we manage to
digest them just fine.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765 I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder