On Sat, 20 Apr 1996 lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
> (I'm
> certainly not saying that this inevitably leads to belief in
> macroevolution. Mike Behe is an excellent example of someone who is
> convinced by his highly developed scientific intuition that macroevolution
> is wrong.)
A comment and some empathy for biochemists like Mike and materials
scientists like Walter Bradley who both focus on
those first life molecules. It is without a doubt a
terrible problem trying to figure out how life first began--specifically,
there really isn't a fossil record for the first molecules say like I have
in comparative odontology. In my case I've got all these little cusps on
teeth to give me great clues on how to theorized dental
evolution. However, in saying that, I believe then that we should
caution how far antievolutionists take the conclusions offered by Mike and
Walter into the macroevolution debate. As I pointed out, first molecules
are problematic, but that may just reflect our ignorance. There is a
ton of great evidence supporting the evolution of species (even many PCs
will admit to some evolutionary change). Trying to dismiss the entire
macroevolutionary thesis because of issues raised by Mike and Walter I
believe fails to appreciate the vast support for evolution.
Regards,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------