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.

  "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."

> 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*.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message