Psuedogenes are good for Creationism!

CrashFrog says (sorry, I don't know how to quote in the little boxes like you do. I'm new):"This isn't exactly true. It's not (for instance) the fact that both apes and humans have pseudogenes that suggests common descent. It's the fact that they have a lot of the same pseudogenes. For instance apes and humans both have a broken gene that could synthesize Vitamin C if it worked. In both humans and apes, the gene is broken in the same place.What process would break the gene in the same way, twice, in a number of seperate species? The obvious conclusion is that apes and humans share heredity to some degree."So, combining Raymon's and Frog's logic, we can therefore conclude that the mutation pseudogenizing the gene for making vitamin C occured after the flood. Since all apes and humans share this mutation, they are all descended from a post-flood species, via speciation within "kinds". So, on the ark there was one representative of the ape/human "kind", which was either apelike or humanlike. Since we know human were there (Noah), this kind must have been human, and all apes are therefore descendents of Noah and his family, along with all of humankind. The logic is internally consistent, and therefore I will agree that the study of pseudogenes can shed tremendous light upon biblical history, including a novel and effective way for defining "kinds".Mike

Frog says:
"Also the problem that you have with this theory is that there are ape fossils. If all fossil sediment is a product of the flood, then we know that apes predate the flood and cannot be decendants of the humans on the Ark - they predate the Ark.Added by edit: You say you're new, and your post is ambiguous, so let me just mention, I'm an evolutionist. I didn't write the above to support the Noaic flood, but rather, to show the inconsistencies in any attempt to reconcile a Biblical flood and human-ape heredity."Hmmm, the fossils are a problem for this theory. I was trying to come up with a hypothesis that would be consistent with the scientific evidence and the flood story. (Ignoring other evidence, like radiometric dating, etc., etc.) According to creationists, are ALL fossils from the flood? or do they still happen occasionally post-flood?By the way Frog, I was trying to be deliberately ambiguous. I was playing devil's advocate with my own brain to see if I could tie in the pseudogene data with the flood story. I thought if I was ambiguous the thread would not immediately turn into a polarized angry shouting match as is often the case. I too, of course, believe in evolution.Thanks for the welcome!Mike