Huxter:
>**** This statement can only be a product of your selective digestion of
material posted to this list. What >is 'easier' about patterns of shared
mutations via design?
>The fact that these patterns are indicative of relationship has been PROVEN
(insofar as scientific proof >goes
Bertvan:
"that these patterns are indicative of relationship" can not be denied. The
question remaining is what is the nature of that relationship? You believe
Neo Darwinism, a mechanistic process without plan or purpose, provides the
complete explanation. Fine. However, if that relationship includes some
presently unknown design, pattern, plan or purpose, only a scientist
believing in design will find it.
Huxter
- see
>Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
>Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.
>Atchley WR, Fitch WM
>for example. This shows that KNOWN lineages can be reconstructed using DNA
sequence data. If this >simple observation can be tested, WHY would it be
easier to say 'oh, well, it was designed to be that >way'?
Bertvan:
I assume "gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice" shows that
all mice are related. Isn't that micro evolution? I haven't heard anyone
dispute the possibility of Neo Darwinism explaining micro evolution. There
might be other explanations for the DNA relationships of entirely different
organisms. Is the neo Darwinist reply:
"No there is not!! We like the explanation we have and we are not going to
look any further!!"??
I am not a scientist, but I can even think of a few myself. I hope
scientists who believe design and purpose to be a part of nature are thinking
of others.
Bertvan