Re: Ignorant antievolutionists

From: Peter Ruest (
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 11:30:49 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Ruest: "RE: No one believes proteins are the first form of life."

    Glenn Morton wrote (21 May 2002 21:08:30 -0700):
    > I want to highlight this question by Peter Ruest.
    > He is criticizing me for believing that anti-evolutionists hold that one and
    > only one sequence of amino acids is capable of performing a given function.
    > I cite below, lots of anti-evolutionists who do precisely that. And they
    > are not all YEC. Peter wrote:
    > >
    > >Of course, all this has nothing to do with the idea that there can be
    > >only one active cyt.c sequence. I wonder where you get that idea from.
    > >Do you know of anyone ignorant enough to hold it?
    > Yeah, lots of anti-evolutinists are that ignorant. Ignorant is your word so
    > I will use it.

    I have not checked any of the publications you cite, in order to see
    what they write. But assuming your reading is correct, I should not have
    used this strong term.

    I apologize to all those concerned for using the word "ignorant".

    I certainly know the following authors are NOT ignorant at all: Charles
    Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, Percival Davis, Dean H. Kenyon,
    Russell Maatman. I don't know and have not read Robert Gange. I should
    like to check what they all actually wrote. I might get around to it

    The passage you quote from Gange also talks about a protein sequence,
    however, not only DNA sequences as you say. This makes the error (for
    this case) less serious, as there is a code degeneracy between DNA and
    protein. Further extenuating circumstances are that he wrote this in
    1986, when very much less was known about protein synonyms, and that
    even today, we still don't know how much of this apparent "synonymy" may
    be due to species-specific requirements or advantages (indeed, Gange
    does mention optimal efficiency!). Neither do we know whether
    independently evolved (i.e. completely different) protein families
    performing exactly the same function exist at all.

    The second and third extenuating circumstances also apply to what you
    quote from Maatman.

    Bradley apparently admitted an error. Have you discussed this point with
    anyone else of these authors (forget about Gish)?


    Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
    <> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
    "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 11:48:57 EDT