# Questions.Creationists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448 "2005-02-04T23:29:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/21 "2005-02-05T09:19:40Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > We know that viri probably traveled here from space long before life could even under the best conditions have formed on its own. Cite? Not that this has anything to do with evolution, I’m just interested. I know there are some hypotheses about interstellar vira, but as far as I know we don’t “know”. > [@](#): > > We know given the estimated ages of both the earth and the universe, that conditions would have been right elsewhere long before earth was a dribble down milkys leg. For us to live under the delusion that life got its start from the muck of this world is pure loonisy. we stopped believing the earth was the center of the universe a long time ago. Get a news paper its 2005. And this has what to do with evolution? ---
**Author:** ![anonymousbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ea924/32.png) [@anonymousbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonymousbob)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/22 "2005-02-05T09:32:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I have no idea what you’re talking about. You seem to be implying that terrestrial life came from outer space, which…whatever…but you misspelled “lunacy.” You said that the basic structure of life has not changed. I say what makes you think it ever has. I don’t get to use lunacy much. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/23 "2005-02-05T13:20:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Nobody has poked holes in evolutionary theory. You are misinformed and, I suspect, not aware of how the word “theory” is defined in science. I am not trying to pick a fight with you, I honestly think you’ve been given bad information. And I am saying that some people _have_ and _do_ dispute the validity of evolutionary theory. Here are several examples I found by a simple search: [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/25966](http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/25966) [http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp](http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp) [http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html](http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html) [http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html](http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html) [http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml](http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml) [http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html](http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html) [http://www.creationequation.com/EvolutionismsFlawsandHoles.htm](http://www.creationequation.com/EvolutionismsFlawsandHoles.htm) [http://www.projesus.com/Flaworfact.html](http://www.projesus.com/Flaworfact.html) Again, I was not questioning the validity of evolution in my post, I was simply stating that some people _have_ challenged it. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/24 "2005-02-05T13:33:50Z")
Those aren’t holes, those are incoherent ramblings from misinformed people. Every single site you listed comes from some creationist site and every single of one of the “holes” they say have been refuted on talkorigins and hold no weight for anybody with a biology background. I don’t know what “holes” you had in mind for your first article, but when you do a google search for particular terms, perhaps you should read the link to make sure it is supporting your arguments. Your links: dead horses. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/25 "2005-02-05T14:28:09Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Q 2- my strongest arguments against Evolution - the unlikeliness of order, life, mind developing randomly out of chaos, lifelessness, mindlessness. …AFAIK, God may have used evolution as His methodology, even with the creation of humanity. My main fight is against materialist reductionism, aka naturalism, not with evolutionary theory. Let me say that I have no problems with ID or Creation being taught at Church or at Home. My concern is with State promotion of religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, this morning’ s paper had an article that Cecil County Maryland school board members wish to push for alternative explanations to evolution. As I understand your position, you do not necessarily have evidence to support your belief. Life is just too complicated for you to imagine that it occurs as a natural process based on the laws of physics. I respect your belief. Do you understand that this belief does not belong in public schools? Peace through Liberty rwjefferson P.S. To all: Thanks for carrying on this discussion. It will take a while for me to read all of the responses. I have a busy day. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/26 "2005-02-05T15:14:51Z")
> [@Good Egg](#): > > I’ve always heard if evolution happened, why are there still lower forms of life? > You asked “one thing that will never change”-death. 1. It is a basic evolutionary understanding that an organism that finds the best fit for a particular niche will remain adapted to that niche. The answer is simply that those niches still exist and there is no better solution to utilize that niche. Those organisms will remain stable until the niche changes or a better adapted organism comes along. This explanation, is what students should be learning in school. Alternative explanations are only necessary for those that do not know the obvious (and data supported) answer. 1. Death, by definition, is change: Was alive, now dead; was an organism, now fertilizer, was organic now recycled again and again; forever. Liberty through Knowledge rwjefferson ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/27 "2005-02-05T16:56:01Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > 1. It is a basic evolutionary understanding that an organism that finds the best fit for a particular niche will remain adapted to that niche. The answer is simply that those niches still exist and there is no better solution to utilize that niche. Those organisms will remain stable until the niche changes or a better adapted organism comes along. > > This explanation, is what students should be learning in school. I would disagree, partially because that is a vast oversimplification of niche theory (and there is debate as to whether niches do, in fact, exist independently of the organisms which inhabit them), but mostly because, ultimately, it’s just really not the reason why “lower” forms exist. Primitive forms exist because evolution produces bushes, not ladders; lineages branch and diversify, not transform whilst gradually ascending some “evolutionary ladder”. Also, many lineages remain remarkably conservative over their temporal span (the reasons for which often go beyond their already being “well-enough adapted”). Constraints on variation and fortuitousness in both the appearance of new variations as well as the survival of neighboring species both play major rolls in determining the evolutionary directions a given lineage might take. Ultimately, the question of why, if evolution is true, primitive forms exist, is not a counter to evolutionary theories, as there is nothing implicit or inherent in those theories which states that such _should not_ or _could not_ be the case. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/28 "2005-02-05T18:24:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, I was not questioning the validity of evolution in my post, I was simply stating that some people have challenged it. However, the phrase you used was not that people have _challenged_ evolutionary theory, (many have), but that people had “poked holes” in it. The citations you have provided range from the misinformed through the deluded to the truly dishonest, but none of those _challenges_ has successfully _poked a hole_ in the Theory of Evolution. That is what has prompted the responses you are receiving. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/29 "2005-02-05T21:38:39Z")
Thank you **633sqadron** for your comments. I tend to agree. > [@633squadron](#): > > The argument he presented sounds like some variation of “irreducible complexity” (IR). IR was proposed by a member of the scientific community who noted that some biochemical systems didn’t seem like they could have “evolved.” The IR question seems to more accurately reflect on the knowledge and imagination and hubris of the person than on reality. “I (science) do not (currently) understand this, so it must be magic…I mean God.” > [@](#): > > The counter-argument is that evolution/natural selection does not presuppose moving from a simple system to a complex one. A system that appears to be IR could have evolved from a _more_ complex system whose predecessors are more obvious. Sorry, I’m lost. If a _less_ complex system cannot be explained, how did a _more_ complex system arise? Did they say which more obvious predecessors? > [@](#): > > I suspect that we will never know what “started” life unless we have the incredible luck to see it starting somewhere else in the universe. Although, I suspect there will never be a specific answer (assuming life only arose once) for earth, life is a natural and inevitable process under physical laws. Molecules that were once thought to be only produced as a by-product of life have been found to permeate the universe. Even now, researchers are producing more and more complex molecules under conditions that simulate any number of naturally occurring environments. It is only a matter of time until the next breakthrough in understanding. rwjefferson ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/30 "2005-02-05T22:00:06Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > Why can’t they both be compatible? Why are there holes in arguments for both? Creation involves specific intervention by God. Evolution relies on the Natural Laws of God, no specific intervention required. Since there is no evidence or need (other than emotional comfort) to invoke supernatural intervention, science leaves that to the church (where it belongs). Yes, there are gaps and pieces still missing in the picture of evolution, but there are no holes that I Am aware of. Let us start with what you see as the biggest hole, and we will take it from there. rwjefferson ---
**Author:** ![anonymousbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ea924/32.png) [@anonymousbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonymousbob)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/31 "2005-02-05T22:07:47Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > Those aren’t holes, those are incoherent ramblings from misinformed people. Every single site you listed comes from some creationist site and every single of one of the “holes” they say have been refuted on talkorigins and hold no weight for anybody with a biology background. I don’t know what “holes” you had in mind for your first article, but when you do a google search for particular terms, perhaps you should read the link to make sure it is supporting your arguments. > > Your links: dead horses. those are very relevant and valid links. All I’ve seen from the opposing side is contradictory drivel from a bunch of religous zealots. not a sign of anything that coud even remotely be considered evidence. Actually there is a very long and growing list of respectable scientists that question the possibility of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/32 "2005-02-05T22:10:52Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > That statment its self makes the argument against evolution. > We know that viri probably traveled here from space long … Sorry bob, I do not see the argument against evolution in that statement. Can you explain further? Also I was not aware that the viri “probably” traveled here. I am aware of the conjecture, but not of the likelihood. Please, more information. r~ ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/33 "2005-02-05T22:21:23Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > And I am saying that some people _have_ and _do_ dispute the validity of evolutionary theory. Here are several examples I found by a simple search: > > [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/25966](http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/25966) > [- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -](http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp) > [http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html](http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html) > [Search Tools | The Institute for Creation Research](http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html) > [http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml](http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml) > [http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html](http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html) > [http://www.creationequation.com/EvolutionismsFlawsandHoles.htm](http://www.creationequation.com/EvolutionismsFlawsandHoles.htm) > [http://www.projesus.com/Flaworfact.html](http://www.projesus.com/Flaworfact.html) > > Again, I was not questioning the validity of evolution in my post, I was simply stating that some people _have_ challenged it. As I stated in the OP: > [@rwjefferson](#): > > Imagine how confusing this is to our youth. How can one properly learn to judge truth, when the people you should be able to trust, are not above untruth? I quickly glanced at the first three sites; they are fetid with untruth. It always amazes me when “Christians” so blatantly lie. r~ Thanks to those that have previously commented for evolution. I wish only to add to your comments. ---
**Author:** ![anonymousbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ea924/32.png) [@anonymousbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonymousbob)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/34 "2005-02-05T22:30:56Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > Sorry bob, I do not see the argument against evolution in that statement. Can you explain further? > > Also I was not aware that the viri “probably” traveled here. I am aware of the conjecture, but not of the likelihood. > > Please, more information. > > r~ Read it, he said there was no difference in the basic structure of the cell. Where is the evolution in that. You have blinded yourselves, you have fought this cause for so long you have become jaded, unable to see it is becomming an out dated idea. As out dated as the belief that the world is flat. I think I know which side you would have been on in that debate. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/35 "2005-02-05T22:31:42Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > Actually there is a very long and growing list of respectable scientists that question the possibility of evolution. Name some. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/36 "2005-02-05T22:34:47Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > I would disagree, partially because that is a vast oversimplification of niche theory (and there is debate as to whether niches do, in fact, exist independently of the organisms which inhabit them), but mostly because, ultimately, it’s just really not the reason why “lower” forms exist. Primitive forms exist because evolution produces bushes, not ladders; lineages branch and diversify, not transform whilst gradually ascending some “evolutionary ladder”. Also, many lineages remain remarkably conservative over their temporal span (the reasons for which often go beyond their already being “well-enough adapted”). Constraints on variation and fortuitousness in both the appearance of new variations as well as the survival of neighboring species both play major rolls in determining the evolutionary directions a given lineage might take. > > Ultimately, the question of why, if evolution is true, primitive forms exist, is not a counter to evolutionary theories, as there is nothing implicit or inherent in those theories which states that such _should not_ or _could not_ be the case. Although it is indeed a simplification, I do not understand your disagreement. I said nothing about ladders. Please review my _basic understanding_ and please be more specific over “our” disagreement. I’m not sure we differ that greatly. Thanks r~ ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/37 "2005-02-05T22:45:27Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > Actually there is a very long and growing list of respectable scientists that question the possibility of evolution. I don’t see that the list is any longer or any more respectable than it’s ever been. Since the 1900s, creationists have been claiming this exact same thing: a growing number of scientists are rejecting Darwinism, etc. etc. But when you go to check these lists out, they are stuffed full of Christian diploma-mill titles and occasional 300 year old physicist who doesn’t have a clue about biology. As far as legitimate critics with actual arguments of any merit… not so much. Behe was probably the closest in a long while, and his arguments were so transparently weak that he still hasn’t published anything on the subject in a journal. In fact, Behe was particularly annoying, in that he demanded evolutionary explanations for features like the flagellum… before scientists had even worked out how flagellum funcitoned in the first place, much less how they might have evolved their functions. Worse, he claimed no one had any idea how blood clotting might have evolved, ignoring the fact that the very scientist Behe had cited had spent a lifetime working on fleshing that out. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/38 "2005-02-05T22:52:17Z")
> [@anonymousbob](#): > > Read it, he said there was no difference in the basic structure of the cell. I wish to read it, unfortunately, I have somehow overlooked the full quote. Please start over and assume that I am not familiar with the quote or the viri. I was not aware that it was the evolutionists that were blind. Please tell me what you see. r~ ---
**Author:** ![anonymousbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ea924/32.png) [@anonymousbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonymousbob)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/39 "2005-02-05T22:59:21Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > Name some. A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism “I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U. There are a few. ---
**Author:** ![anonymousbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ea924/32.png) [@anonymousbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anonymousbob)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448/40 "2005-02-05T23:29:55Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > I wish to read it, unfortunately, I have somehow overlooked the full quote. Please start over and assume that I am not familiar with the quote or the viri. > > I was not aware that it was the evolutionists that were blind. Please tell me what you see. > r~ All life posses DNA, that DNA is made up of proteins, the proteins are made up of amino acid chains. One of these well studied amino acid chains is called cytochrome C, because it occurs with most organisms, the results can be compared side by side with the results from other organisms and a percent difference can be tallied up and compared. Corn shares 66.7% of our cytochrome C chain Did you know that Tetrahymena thermophila a unicellular, ciliated freshwater protozoan, shares 42.6% of the same DNA amino acid chain that Maize (corn) has! 1 We as humans become quite relieved to find that we share 47.5% of our amino acid chain with that same protozoan. This means that there are more similarities between people and a unicellular protozoan then corn and that same protozoan. 1 These are switches not the dna itsself. The dna is virtually the same for all life. only the setup differs from organism to oragnism. There is no sign of evolution in dna structure, there is some speculation, but that is not evidence is it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-creationists/288448.md?page=3)