Re: General Response
Mon, 31 May 1999 20:04:47 EDT

In a message dated 5/31/99 3:56:24 PM, writes:

<< Huxter wrote:
How is man so fundamnetally different? Are not the differences simply of
degree? Are you aware of the numerous phylogentic studies that demonstrate
the baselessness of your claims?

My comments:
Jacob Bronowski, an ardent evolutionist, observed in his lecture "The Long
Childhood" that if man's brain was simply more biologically developed than
animals brains then one would expected geese to be holding lectures on Conrad
Lorentz and rats to be writing papers on BF Skinner.

#### Why is that? Did Bronowski, the ardent evolutionist, do molecular
biological studies? I noticed that Bronowski, the ardent evolutionist,
stopped publishing papers in 1973 - 10 years or so before the results of
direct DNA sequencing analyses were being done. Was he clairvoyant, too?
The book you referred to in another email said this came from his book The
Ascent of Man - which came out in 1976. The ardent creationist Duane Gish
once (and still, according to some reports) claimed that some human proteins
are morre similar to those of a bullfrog - I guess since an 'ardent
creationist' said that, it MUST be true - because, he is, afterall, a true

Since in fact they do not, in fact cannot, there must be something
fundamentally different about the brain of man from the average animal brain.
Such a truth would render your phylogentic studies irrelevant.

#### LOL!!! What a brilliant deduction! Let me get this straight - you're a
molecular biologst copllege professor, and you're deducing that because rats
are not writing papers on BF Skinner that therefore human brains are
sufficiently different forom other animals' that genetic data is therefore
useless? LOL!! I take it you don't actually know much about molecular
phylogenics - end of discussion.


----------------------------------------------- >>