Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Denying 
>> that man is part of the evolutionary tree of life would make any 
>> understanding derived from observations on the development of the chick 
>> embryo useless.
> 
>   That just doesn't make any sense. You don't have to accept the entire
> evolution theory as true in order to accept the similarities between the
> hearts and take advantage of that.

Tell me, what part of what is in your perception "the entire evolution 
theory" can you reject and still place human and chick in the same tree?

 From reading this thread and others before this, I know that you have a 
rather different idea of what evolution theory comprises than what is 
common in my surroundings. I really like to understand your point of view.

> 
>   "See, the hearts are similar, and you admit it, so consequently you
> must admit that the entire theory of evolution is true" is not valid
> reasoning. Neither is "you don't believe the evolution theory is true,
> thus you can't take advantage of similarities between animal and human
> physiology."
If we are studying the role of, say, TBX3 *)  in the development of the 
mouse heart what does that say about humans? If we assume that both 
mouse and human derive from a common ancestor we may have similar 
responses. If we assume that both have no common roots, nothing can be 
concluded from it. True, they may *look* similar, but that is possibly 
totally accidental. Even the fact that changes in comparable genes in 
both species lead to the same disorders may still be just coincidence.
> 
>> In fact, I think you'll be amazed how much of current 
>> biological and medical research would become meaningless if you don't 
>> believe in macro-evolution.
> 
>   I would be amazed indeed. I don't understand the relation between
> believing in macro-evolution and being able to take advantage of similarities
> in the physiology of different species.
> 
>   Similar physiology between animals and humans doesn't prove evolution.
> It only proves that there's similar physiology between animals and humans.
> (*Evidence* is different from *proof*.)
> 
The physiology is so mind boggling similar that the only explanation is 
a common descent. You can not *disprove* that at some point in time both 
species were independently created. But why would the creator copy 
everything from one design to another, including all the bugs, patches 
and obsolete code? Again, there is no way to disprove such a lack of 
creativity, but why would you replace a perfectly acceptable explanation 
by a rabbit out of a hat?

*) a gene that is a.o. responsible for modifying the expression of 
various other genes so that the cell develops into an atrial or a 
ventricular type of muscle cell. In other organs may do completely 
different things.

Post a reply to this message