At 02:55 PM 3/28/00 -0500, Mike wrote:
>Me:
>
> > I am not asking for direct evidence as I do not expect such a
> > thing. Indirect evidence is just fine. What indirect evidence
> > indicates that a major evolutionary innovation was indeed the
> > product of RM&NS?
>
>Tedd:
>
> >How about evidence of gene duplication? Unless the process of
> >gene duplication can be shown to require intelligent help, I
> >think RM & NS wins again.
>
>Evidence of gene duplication is simply sequence similarity.
>How is this evidence against ID and for RM&NS? Where in
>ID is the requirement for the intelligent designer to employ
>nothing more than completely different sequences? Where is
>the evidence that those sequence similarities were indeed
>generated by random gene duplications?
Hi Mike. Let me ask you a question. The most recent issue of
<Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith> contains the
following article:
Bergman, Jerry. "Is the Inverted Human Eye a Poor
Design?" <Perspectives on Science and Christian
Faith> 52:1, 18, M 2000.
The author makes the case for the inverted eye
"design" to be superior to all other designs. For sake
of argument, let's suppose this is true.
My question is this. Since the intelligent designer is
capable of re-using designs and since this does make
sense from the engineering design point of view, why
did he not employ this superior design more uniformly,
i.e. instead of some of the apparently "inferior" designs
we find elsewhere?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"How come stealing from one book is plagiarism,
and stealing from many is research?"
-- Alfred E Newman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 02 2000 - 21:56:37 EDT