Summations Only

The problem is much worse than that, bluegenes.To account for all the non-homologous genes by deletions would require the common ancestor to have had hundreds of surplus genes available for deletion. Unless these genes were nonsense then this is a large loss of information, and if they were nonsense why did the common ancestor have them?However I am heartened to see that you are embracing speciation by loss of genetic information.

Actually the Middle East is part of the post flood world. We don't know where the Ark was built in reference to modern geography and we don't know what animals lived there. For all we know kangaroos could have been grazing on the hills watching Noah and his sons at work.[edit]
Better to ask how kangaroos got to Australia. That, of course, has been asked and answered many times before.
So here's how. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdfThe animals migrated overland, perhaps taking hundreds of years to reach their final destination. A few rabbits were released in SE Australia. In less than 200 years they had spread to the far corners of the land, but no individual was required to make the entire journey.Today there are some deep water stretches but geologists believe there have been major tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea-floors, in the time-period with which they associate an ice age, which would correspond to the post flood migration period. If that fails we can use the solution that evolutionists have proposed in other cases, rafting.Edited by CRR, : Section added after interruption.

Maybe we should move this discussion on Noah's Ark to "The True History of the Flood". I think it would be more at home there than here.

Fossilization is quite rare, as evolutionists often tell us when explaining the lack of transitional forms. While the flood would have provided good conditions for fossilisation the post flood world would have been far less favourable. In addition animal numbers were initially quite low further reducing the chance of fossilisation. Some marsupials did end up in America and there are marsupial fossils in Europe.

Not that I know of, although they did previously exist in both Africa and Europe. I'd be interested if you can find details.

Actually many historians believe that it was the belief in Creation by a rational monotheistic Creator that provided the foundation for modern science.Peter Harrison, then a professor of history and philosophy at Bond University in Queensland, Australia (and one-time Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford):"Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada, writes in a similar vein, and also explains the somewhat misleading term literal interpretation:Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed.Biblical roots of modern science - creation.com

Here you are. First result from Google
Discovery Of The Oldest European Marsupial In Southwest France ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/...ses/2009/11/091106103510.htmEdited by CRR, : typo corrected

Except that since ENCODE it has been clear that there is little junk DNA. More functions are being discovered in what was formerly called junk, even in pseudogenes.
The argument from ERV's only applies if they are part of the junk and they were indeed caused by past viral infections. However some ERV's have been shown to be part of functional DNA, and the evidence that they came from past infections is only based on similarity. Since we don't see ERV's moving toward fixity now viruses must have stopped doing it a long time ago.

1. Species should evolve out of their clade.
No but species should evolve to produce new clades nested within clades and the ultimate clade is the one beginning with LUCA.2. Observations of natural selection is used as evidence for common ancestry.
Darwin proposed natural selection as the cause of common ancestry so in that sense it is evidence. Often observations of natural selection are touted as evolution in action; such as Darwin's Finches and Trinidad Guppies.3. Similarities alone evidence evolution.
Isn't that how cladistics works? By creating a tree based on similarities?
Cladistics (from Greek κλάδος, klados, i.e., "branch") is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized based on shared derived characteristics.

Certainly Jenner didn't use evolution theory to develop smallpox vaccination. Nor did Pasteur for vaccines against Anthrax and Rabies. Cerainly we need new flu vaccine each year because the flu virus changes but the theory of evolution is of no help in predicting the way it will change, so it isn't used there either.As for Cholera there were several pioneers in the development of the vaccine. In 1884, Catalan physician Jaume Ferran i Clua developed a live vaccine he had isolated from cholera patients in Marseilles, and used it that on over 30,000 individuals in Valencia during that year's epidemic. Waldemar Haffkine then developed a vaccine with less severe side effects, testing it on more than 40,000 people in the Calcutta area from 1893 to 1896. Finally, in 1896, Wilhelm Kolle introduced a heat-killed vaccine that was significantly easier to prepare than Haffkine's, using it on a large scale in Japan in 1902.[Wikipedia] As far as i know none of these used evolution theory.

That might have been a valid response several years ago, say when Larry Moran wrote a piece in Sandwalk in ~2003, but not now. In the intervening years, more and more functions have come to light. E.g.
- Penn Medicine News, ‘Mysterious’ Non-protein-coding RNAs Play Important Roles in Gene Expression.
- Repetitive DNA. It must be unimportant, right? Not so, found two researchers from Rockefeller University. Writing in PNAS, they discovered that three proteins carefully protect those repeats around centromeres the locations on chromosomes where the spindle attaches during cell division.
- Canadian researchers publishing in PNAS say intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are widespread and have diverse functionsAccording to University of California San Francisco

quote:

---

The mysterious majority — as much as 98 percent — of our DNA do not code for proteins. Much of this dark matter genome is thought to be nonfunctional evolutionary leftovers that are just along for the ride. However, hidden among this noncoding DNA are many crucial regulatory elements that control the activity of thousands of genes. What is more, these elements play a major role in diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and autism, and they could hold the key to possible cures.

---

While UCSF still thinks much is junk scientists are finding more function and less junk as time goes by.Science was hindered for decades by the junk-DNA myth but it's now catching up. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Feb. 2, 2017, announced millions of dollars in new grant funding for a nationwide project to set up five characterization centers, to study how regulatory elements, including the "junk", influence gene expression and, consequently, cell behavior.[edit]
With Fresh Funding, ENCODE Team Continues Demolition of Junk DNA Myth
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC
February 13, 2017
With Fresh Funding, ENCODE Team Continues Demolition of “Junk DNA” Myth | Evolution NewsEdited by CRR, : Reference added

I agree, but I think it would be in the order of 10% rather than 90%.

Ah, the ever unreliable Talk Origins. I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site.t4t

Yes, dwise1, you're right. Calling Talk Origins atheist is as bad a characterising the Discovery Institute as Creationist.

No. It was pointed at someone else. Sorry to trigger you.