Evolution For Whatever, etc...

Do you realise what you've just said in your post? If humans and chimps indicate a common designer because of their similarities, what do very different organisms suggest? Surely you're not suggesting that there is more than one Creator? That is the logical corollary to your theory. One Creator made whales, another made rats, yet another made limpets. On this basis, how many Creators do you think there were? If you can accept evolution from the date of the Flood to account for all the differences "within kind" that we see, why can't you accept that evolution over a much greater length of time would result in even bigger differences. If you accept that there are species within "kinds" such as the horse and the donkey, then you are suggesting that these two different species arose from a single common ancestor of the "horse kind". So already you're accepting that speciation can occur within a very short space of time since the Flood. I don't see how you can say this, yet still maintain that a much longer time isn't long enough!!Can I suggest that you sit down offline and compose your theory, then read it through to look for inconsistencies like this. Your theories would hold together much more if you didn't contradict yourself all the time.Many of the problems that you're having in comprehending what everyone is trying to say are because you don't actually understand either the subject you are discussing or the objections that others are raising. The bottom line is that your grasp of the subjects is shaky. I would suggest that you maybe take some time to look into the background of DNA, how it works, what it does and doesn't do. Then hunt down some good evolution information so that you know exactly what it is you're trying to argue against. Go to evolution sites, not Creation sites as you will find out what evolutionists believe, not what others say evolutionists believe. There's no point in arguing against a position that you think evolutionists take when it turns out that they never believed that in the first place, for the very reasons that you have pointed out - you just end up reinventing the wheel again and again.

Whatever, they've already done a four-fold sequence of the chimp genome, they announced it on Dec 10th 2003. Analysis from comparisons with human genes is expected March/April 2004.I'm not sure what you mean when you say

they should in time be able to determine the different kinds of creatures by the genes, chromosome bundles, etc...

. Surely we don't need genome sequencing to tell us that a whale and a bat are different species? As for using this sort of data to tell the difference between very closely related organisms, it began quite some time ago and is a standard technique used on a daily basis in all sorts of areas. The technique used is PCR (polymerase chain reaction) and little "starter" bits of DNA (primers) which will only recognise a chosen target are used to amplify the piece of DNA in question. So, for example, if I want to know if my fungus on my potato is a Colletotrichum coccodes or another species of Colletotrichum, I use primers which will only recognise Colletotrichum coccodes and not the others. If I get an amplified fragment of DNA and its the predicted size then I know my fungus is Colletotrichum coccodes, if I don't get the product, I know it isn't.This sort of technique is only possible because of the amount of gene sequencing that's been done over the last decade or so since PCR was developed. From this it's possible to pick a gene and compare the sequence of it to the sequence of the same gene in other species. What's interesting is that you can align these sequences so that the second sequence has only one difference from the starting sequence, the third has two differences from the starting sequence (the original difference and another one), the fourth has three differences (the first two and another one) and so on. From that you can see a gradual progression and accumulation of changes in the DNA sequence for a particular gene and you can also see what order it happened in. Funnily enough, the order that appears is the same as the proposed evolutionary route.Back to the chimps. Now, what you seem to be saying now is that evolution happened, but God made the changes in the DNA sequences, yet previously you seemed to assert that there was no way that the DNA could change enough to give rise to different species or "kinds". If God took the DNA of the chimp and changed it to make humans, then surely, by definition that would mean that one of your "kinds" arose from another of your "kinds". Doesn't that go against everything you've argued before? Surely the transition from chimp to human qualifies as macro-evolution, whether by natural selection or the Hand of God? Aren't you yet again, contradicting yourself?Evolution itself doesn't claim that humans came from chimps, but that they shared a common ancestor, the branch of the tree split before chimps were chimps and after the split we evolved along different lines. And yet, even along those different lines, the DNA of chimp and humans has on the surface a 98.8% similarity. It remains to be seen where the similarities and differences lie, but I think we'll find that some genes have huge differences and others have very little or no difference - it'll be "lumpy".I think you'll understand all of this better if you learn something about genetic code and how DNA actually codes. That will help you to understand how very small changes, such as a single base change (either substitution, deletion or insertion) can have such widespread consequences within an organism.Not all changes within DNA are random, for example mobile genetic elements such as transposons or retroviruses have a preference as to what sequences they insert themselves into and how accurately they manage to remove themselves. This increases the mutation rate for certain genes, by splitting them on insertion or deleting bits if and when they excise themselves, taking a bit of the flanking DNA with them. Add to this mistakes made when DNA copies itself, physical damage to DNA which results in a mutation (UV light, chemical carcinogens, radiation) and the real biggie, sexual reproduction which alows the mixing of genes from different individuals and you can see that the opportunities for DNA change are numerous.Most of the changes are detrimental and not conducive to life (about 50% of all human pregnancies end in the first few days because of genetic problems). A few are neutral, they neither harm nor help, but some help an organism compete much better so the one with the mutation has more chance of reproducing.Again I urge you to find out about how DNA actually works and codes and we can take it from there.

NO, NO, NO!!! You can't say they had different common ancestors for the very reason that the ancestor is either common or different, not both!!! Sheesh!!At the risk of unraveling the fog that I've managed to knit so far, consider this. Why is it that a protein which nourishes the developing embryo in the egg, vitellogenin, shows common stretches of DNA sequence? I'm not talking chimps and humans here, I'm talking frogs, chickens, lizards, bees, the banana prawn (it does exist, honest, I've just pulled the sequence out on a Blast!), zebrafish, killifish, fruit flies, silkworms. The unusual thing about this protein is that it isn't an enzyme so doesn't need to conserve (keep unchanged) any active site. It's a food storage protein so it can mutate at pretty high rates without the same deleterious effects as mutation in the active site of an enzyme. Now, why on earth should the gene for the protein in the silkworm have common stretches with the gene in frogs or chickens? Any chance that one may have been based on the other? How about them actually evolving?Whatever, I'm sorry to say that your general grasp of any science subject is atrocious, you're throwing in scientific terms that you don't know the meaning of, but you think sound good. Some of your posts have made me think, although maybe not in the way that you wanted me to. I can see why the idea of the Creator using a single blueprint to create everything is attractive to you - it's the only way you can look evidence for evolution in the face, yet still hold on to your "theory". You're now trying to shoehorn evolution into the Creation story and the ideas get wilder and wilder, just like your "fountains of the deep" and the ark!Do you really want to learn anything here? We're willing to try to teach you, but only if you can refrain from posting contradictory ideas which purport to support each other. If you can't see your own contradictions, you'll never see the contradictions in the creationist websites that you believe as if they were Gospel (pun intended). I've already pointed out fundamental and fatal flaws in the hydroplate theory as it is written now, yet you either can't or won't see them. Sadly everyone else can, so you're fooling no-one but yourself.If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to approach this with an open mind, neither holding to one belief or another and see where the evidence leads you - good evidence, that it, not pseudoscience written by people who can't see the holes in their own theories.

Yeah, I know, Percy, but it's worth a try. Click, click, click, it's me knitting needles.....oops, dropped a stitch!