MikeBGene@aol.com writes
in message <e3.2c42b57.26126824@aol.com>:
> 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?
Where is the evidence that a fossil found in the ground actually
was a living creature? An ID could have merely created the
bones and planted them in the ground. Why do you accept
the implication of fossils but reject the implication of
gene sequences?
<snip>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 28 2000 - 15:35:08 EST