William EH
I basically agree with you although I wouldn't get too caught up on the number of bases per year. Are you aware that there are huge chunks of (mainly 'junk') DNA that does distinguish between otherwise completely normal humans? Horizontal transfer, copying errors etc. There are wierd sections of DNA that, becasue of repeats, you get frequent miscopyings and the thing gets bigger and bigger!
If you concentrate back on genes I'll agree with you almost entirely except your exact numbers. Then you can decide how valuable your arguement becomes.
One issue to be carful about is that mammals pretty much have near identical genomes (we have recently got the mouse genome). Man and mouse differ by only 300 gene families I think (someone correct me if I am wrong). I don't know when mice supposedly arrived by evo-theory but if we put them at 30 million years that makes one new gene family per 100,000 years.
For the evolutionist the hard ask is that
novel biochemical systems require many multiple new genes to be operational. I'm not saying that all are needed but aminimal subset is. The idea that the immune system arrived one gene at a time is ludicrous. Evolutionists are telling a far bigger fairy tale than the one they accuse us of.
Probably the better arguement along these lines is that we should have seen substantial macroevolution of new gene families in artificially stressed bacteria. In the lab the euibvalent of millions of years of evoltuion has been observed. And evoltuion really works very well. It just doesn't make new genes so far - it's really good at optimizing existing genes for new circumstances though.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-15-2002]