From: Dick Fischer (dickfischer@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 11:17:59 EDT
Denyse wrote:
>"As I recall, Wells's main point was that it is misleading to give biology
>students the impression that molecular studies have confirmed Darwin's
>tree of life, when in fact those studies are plagued by
>inconsistencies. Judging from the 2003 article by Rokas et al., Wells was
>certainly correct in his assessment of the situation in 2000.
Darwin's "tree" is more like a "bush" says Richard Leakey. To not know the
exact connection of every leaf and twig is not to say we don't have
confirmation as to the interconnectedness of all living things.
>Any comments?
Creationists typically make erroneous conclusions on the basis of their
prejudicial mindset. For example, there is a small amount
of inconsistency in radiometric dating from lab to lab, from element to
element, and from sample to sample. This is known. But this does not mean
that radiometric dating is totally unreliable, and therefore the earth
could be 6,000 to 10,000 years old!
There exists a totality of evidence to confirm an earth of ancient age from
the combined weight of radiometric evidence. And there is a totality of
biological evidence to confirm Darwin's tree, even if it looks more bushy
than Darwin envisioned.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 25 2003 - 11:18:33 EDT