DNA similarities ARE NOT proof of evolution

Jennifer Lopez and Alfred Hitchcock look different for several reasons:Sexual-dimorphism effects -- some body parts grow bigger in one sex than the other; sometimes much bigger. This differential growth is controlled by which sex chromosomes are present -- Ms. Lopez is XX and Mr. Hitchcock is XY -- which acts as a switch for how fast the various parts grow.Individual variation -- another differential-growth effect, which varies as a result of variation in development-control genes.Life-history effects -- Ms. Lopez has kept herself much slimmer than Mr. Hitchcock had, and she has let her hair grow much longer than Mr. Hitchcock has.Age -- the best-known pictures of them have been taken when Ms. Lopez was much younger than Mr. Hitchcock.One can factor out several of these factors by comparing some hypothetical James Lopez and Alfred Hitchcock, or Jennifer Lopez and some hypothetical Allison Hitchcock, with both of them being the same age and with the same taste in physical fitness and so forth. Even then, the two would differ as a result of individual variation.The amount of it in our species is very small: 0.1% on averageBut our species seems to have more variety because only a few genes control such prominent features as skin, hair, and eye color, height, etc.Thus, Jennifer Lopez and Alfred Hitchcock can easily look noticeably different despite their genes being ~99.9% matching.[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 04-14-2003]

Having established that differences in a few development-control genes can make a big difference in overall appearance, we consider human-chimpanzee differences.Several of them are a result of we not growing up as completely as chimps do -- an effect called "neoteny". That's why we tend to resemble baby chimps more than adult chimps.However, some of our features are due to increased growth, like the size of our legs and of our brains.There are additional differences; chimps are inadequatedly adapted for two-legged walking, and their mouths and throats are poorly adapted for producing speech, but they are also development-control effects.For comparison, try looking at dog breeds. These have been developed over the last 10,000 years or so, and they have a great variety of appearance -- size, hair color, hair length, ear rigidity, head proportions, leg length, temperament, etc. If only 10 thousand years can make possible such big differences, then 6 million years can make possible the human-chimp differences.

And as to a "common creator" being responsible, I wish to ask what a "common creator" would NOT be responsible for.

booboocruise:
What a "common creator" would not be responsible for?Don't you ever wonder about such things?And I DON'T enjoy conversations with sleepwalkers.Well, the DNA similarities are just that: similarities.Are you maintaining that sequence similarities are pure coincidence or something?Why is one able to construct family trees of organisms from genes? And why do they often agree very well with the family trees constructed with the help of macroscopic features?By the way, if evolution is a FACT, why is there no posted evidence for it?Check the literature on evolutionary biology, booboocruise. I can't do everything for you; I don't want to have to turn this posting into a whole Evolution 101 course.G. K. Chesterton said, and I quote: "The evolutionists seem to know everything there is to know about the missing links, except the fact that they're missing..." How true.And what makes Mr. Chesterton so smart?Geologic column: This was 'made up' by Charles Lyell in 1830, contains many polystrate fossils, and is inconclusive at best.It was NOT made up by Mr. Lyell -- it was the result of the researches of the likes of "Strata" Smith some years before.And polystrate fossils are NOT a disaster for stratigraphy; they are not even very common.(not to mention, 80% of the world's geological sites do not contain rocks in 'proper order' to be used as real evidence for the strata ages).Evidence for that: {}There are places with out-of-order strata, but the cause of the mis-ordering can always be found -- usually some earthquake fault.And the inferred order is abundantly confirmed by radioisotope dating.Bone structure: Just because a human and a whale both have appendages with bones named "radius, ulna, humerus, etc." does not prove evolutionst--it just proves that people gave the same names to the fin-bones of a whale that they gave to the arm-bones of a human. Besides, the bones of a whale's fin were developed on DIFFERENT parts of the chromosome, which actually proves that it is unsufficient evidence.Actually, the names are assigned for a good reason, because one can do bone-to-bone matches between different species' skeletons. It's fairly obvious among the more closely-related species -- most mammals have only 7 neck vertebrae, with giraffes having 7 long ones.Embryology: Mayr used Haeckel's drawings of 1870, comparing the similarity in the early stages of the embryo in different animals. Haeckel was brought on trial in the 1870's and he confessed that the drawins were fraudulant. In fact, when compared to real photographs, the drawings are obvious pro-evolution propaganda.Except that Haeckel was never tried for anything, and except that the similar appearances are often VERY apparent in photographs. I had recently checked on a paper comparing Hox-gene expression in mice and chicken embryos -- and those embryos looked remarkably similar. Also, the same Hox genes marked out the various backbone zones -- neck, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, and tail.Biogeography: That just proves that similar animals live in different parts of the world.Think dispersal. How could the animals and plants get there? Why do many oceanic islands have big flightless birds? And why do some oceanic islands have giant turtles, while no oceanic islands have giant rats?Why did Australia have kangaroos but no rabbits? Why does Australia have wombats but no woodchucks? Etc.Although interesting, I see no evidence that that proves we evolved from bacterio 3.6 billion years ago.So what? There are other lines of evidence besides biogeography.Molecular analysis: Actually, bacteria are quite complex. ...So what?Why not look at molecular phylogenies -- family trees -- some time?Do HONESTLY think that that just happened by chance.Not by pure chance, but from abiogenesis processes that produced an "RNA world" or something similar, which then evolved into the first bacteria.Of course, for all we know, extraterrestrial visitors or time travelers or elves could have seeded the Earth long ago, but where's the positive evidence?If you have hard, irrefutable evidence that the Bible is lying please let me know, (AND CITE YOUR SOURCES SO I CAN LOOK IT UP ON MY OWN).If you care about that question, check out this Biblical Errancy page.

booboocruise:
First off, haven't you ever heard of the ice age?How is that supposed to make any difference?Yes, after the flood, the glaciers expanded, and the oceans receded a little, which is enough to allow a dry passage from Malaysia to Australia (just because there was a flood, there are many ways to solve the problem of "how did flightless creatures get to islands")Except that that does NOT explain biogeographical patterns very well. Booboocruise, I suggest that you do some SERIOUS studies of oceanic-island fauna. Why are there lots of birds, but no land mammals? Even though imported ones can do fine -- well enough to become big pests in some cases. Why would flightless birds make it over but no mice or squirrels or rabbits or woodchucks?And as for Australia itself you have not explained why kangaroos hopped over but rabbits didn't. It cannot be due to ecological unsuitability, because when rabbits were introduced into Australia in the 19th cy., they multiplied enough to become a big pest.Also, Infidels.org (where you got your "biblical errancy" page) is full of crap!!! They're an online tabloid! I've read their articles, and I've spent hours on their website reviewing their so-called biblical errancy.I hope that you found those comments very enlightening.(the Bible being very confusing...) That is the dumbest, most illogical conclusion drawn from that Bible passage. First, it was not the "Bible of God" that caused confusion--it was people who tried to 'twist' and rewrite the Bible so many times that has caused the confusion.Except that that site clearly documents how confusing the Bible sometimes is.If you try to blame God on the problems that man has caused, you are a fool!What is this great unified entity, "man"?

I'd mentioned this in another thread here, but there was a debate recently on the intended topic of this thread: The Thomas-ReMine Debate.I challenge booboocruise to read that debate and evaluate the participants' arguments.I myself believe that Dave Thomas was the winner; his arguments were very cogent and to-the-point. Walter ReMine, however, wandered endlessly and never really bothered to explain what his "Message Theory" was -- he seemed to be making it up as he goes.[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 04-24-2003]