Re: Evolution: A few questions

From: jack syme <>
Date: Wed Jun 23 2004 - 06:32:32 EDT


It never ocurred to me that Mike's comments were "a bit of /ad hominem/
nastiness. And I cant believe that you did. I suspect you are being
paranoid, and too proud of your ability to recognize "loaded language".

In fact, I think you have been out right nasty and throwing ad hominems at

What is your dogma Dave? Are you even a Christian? You seem far from it in
your posts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <>
To: <>
Cc: <>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Evolution: A few questions

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:02:04 -0400 "Mike Tharp" <>
> writes:
> > Hello Dave,
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, how would one account for the evolution of
> > the
> > metamorphosis process of animals such as frogs and butterflies? It
> > has
> > always seemed improbable to me that such an elaborate process could
> > have
> > evolved due to natural selection for random genetic mistakes.
> > However, I
> > readily admit that this is a topic in which I am utterly ignorant!
> > Perhaps
> > you would be willing to share your insights?
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Mike
> >
> Mike,
> The simple answer is "I don't know." I am neither a herpetologist nor a
> lepidopterist nor a paleontologist, the specialties that would, at the
> moment, have as much relevant information as any. Additionally, the
> questions you raise will have to be answered by a study of comparative
> genomics. However, I do not know of any amphibian that has been
> sequenced. I think one of the Drosophila has been sequenced, but that is
> very preliminary to figuring out how the flies undergo development
> compared to other creatures which undergo various levels of metamorphosis
> and those that develop more directly. What I have run across is that
> changes in /hox/ sequences, genes strung together that are activated
> sequentially during development, can produce major alterations in
> embryonic development in chordates, as well as during the development
> both of the embryo and of the pupa in insects. But how they are activated
> and how often, I do not have the expertise to follow.
> While you profess to be "utterly ignorant" of such matters, you know
> enough to present a very slanted version of evolution. "It has always
> seemed improbable to me that such an elaborate process could have evolved
> due to natural selection for random genetic mistakes," misrepresents
> evolution prejudicially. The proper term for development using only
> "natural selection for random genetic mistakes," is "impossible." The
> simple fact that there are more /hox/ sequences in mammals than in flies
> demonstrates that "random genetic mistakes" is not descriptive of the
> transformation of simpler to more complex forms. This is only one of the
> types of alteration available. But that has already been noted earlier in
> this sequence of posts.
> By the way, your final sentence is a bit of /ad hominem/ nastiness. I
> have not responded in kind. However, while I was teaching, the other
> logic professors assigned my letters to the editor as exercises in
> recognizing loaded language. Need more be said?
> Dave
Received on Wed Jun 23 06:48:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 23 2004 - 06:48:05 EDT