Where Stephen shows support for common descent

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 01:34:22 -0700

At 06:17 AM 8/13/99 +0800, you wrote:
>Here is a New York Times article at:
>reporting on yet another master gene that codes for all flowers! Note the
>unconscious design language in the opening sentence:
>"Whether an elaborate orchid, a simple daisy or a many-petaled
>garden rose, the world's flowers are all variations on one simple

thank you! very compelling evidence that all flowers (gymnosperms(sp?))
descended from a common ancestor and share a family resemblence :-)

>As David Berlinski said regarding the astonishing discovery that all
>eyes are produced by the one master gene, "No one in possession of
>these facts can imagine that they support the Darwinian theory":

when the data seem to point to the fact that all life is closely related?
How does that violate Darwin's theory? His theory hangs on common descent.

Well observed Susan, that is exactly what came to mind when I read SJ's confused commentary.