Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

Perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean. It is a fact independant of any assumption of evolution that archaeopteryx has avian features and reptilian features. There are a lot of other examples, too. And there is the genetic evidence mentioned at the start of this thread. For whales over the last decade or so we have gathered a number of species showin the transition from land to water, and recently the genetic evidence of a link to a group called the artiodactyls was confirmed by the discovery of a feature unique to that group in a fossil of one of these transitionals.So it seems to me that what you mean by the "assumption of evolution" can be no more than assuming that evolution is possible. If your mind is clsoed to that possiblitiy then naturally you will reject that evidence. But that does not undermine the existence of the evidence, or of any argument for evolution.

The statements look like complete nonsense to me.I would guess that the numbers are concocted by someone with no idea of the relevant chemistry.While I cannot see where those statements were made - or if they provide any supporting evidence, I see that creationdigest.com saw fit to publish Fred Williams assertion that the invertebrate fossil record is being concealed because it does not support evolution ! (Page not found - creationdigest). Of course anyone who did basic fact checking would knwo that that was false..Obviously creationdigest.com does no fact-checking on the articles they publish. (Nor does Fred Williams on the articles he writes).Fred William's article was discussed on this forum, here :
http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information

Perhaps you can explain why the fact that archaeopteryx is a clear intermediate is NOT in itself reason for an evolutionary interpretation.If you properly analysed the platypus - as taxonomists have you would not conclude that it is related to birds. The "bill" resembles a duck's bill in general shape but it is not a beak.The case for archaeopteryx IS based on the clear anatomical similarities. So long as you accept the possibility of evolution then evolution can be shown to be the best explanation for those similarities. All without assuming that evolution is true.The same goes for whales - but more so since there are several species involved and the genetic data indicates a relationship which was LATER confirmed by clear fossil evidence.Your explanation offers no clear reasoning - but it seems that you do indeed insist that the proper approach is to close your mind to even the possibility of evolution. That would rule out finding evidence for evolution, but it would certainly not be a sound approach.

"The Platypus has a bill that resembles a duck's bill but is actually
an elongated snout covered with soft, moist, leathery skin and sensitive nerve endings. "
http://home.mira.net/~areadman/plat.htm
You might like to check out http://www.platypusforum.org/ as well- especially the "Evolution" section.Oh, and if the platypus usese it's bill like a duck perhaps that explains the shape.Taxonomy is based on an analysis of the complete organism - or as complete as we can manage.The rest of your post makes it quite clear that you really did mean that you deny the evidence for evolution on the grounds that you refuse to accept evolution as a possibility.THat means that your original claim that the evidence for evolution rquired assumign evolution was false and misleading. Yet you seem prepared to make accusation of deception against others with no more basis than the fact that you refuse to accept that evolution is possible.Let me correct some of your other errors. Evolution does not rely solely on point mutations. You have not truly considered the evolution of whales - nor how developmental biology works. You have not even considered the fact that whales are descended from ungulates, not dogs!But thank you for demonstrating that your original claim is false and that there is no point discussing the evidence with you since you refuse to accept even the possiblity of evidence.You have had evidence that does not resat on the assumption of evolution and you have offered no viable explanation for it. Looks like evolution wins again.

Firstly I note that you have had evidence of evolution that does not rely on assuming evolution. If the evidence is best explained by evolution then it fits the bill - as is the case with whale evolution where we have a good array of transitional fossils and genetic evidence. The only way to rule it out is - as I said - to assume that evolution is not even a possible explanation.And that is exactly what you tried to do with the following :

quote:

---

Shifting the hip from canine position to modern whale position would require massive make-overs. This would change and destroy at the same time spinal attachments, nerve endings, muscluar structure, etc. The hind legs would eventually become useless, and how many thousands of amino acid substitutions would be necessary for such a feat? No one knows, but do you know why? Because evolutionary theorists give us only the just-so stories of how a whale came to be from a canine-like ancestor but never work out the details in how such a feat could even be a possibility.

---

But this rests on anignorance of developmental biology (perhaps you would like to consider how the variations within species are possible if your claims were true ?)Therefore the assertions you call "argumentative tacitics" are in fact true. And your are using dishonest argumentative tactics yourself.As to your last-but-one paragraph it appears that you are the one who knows little. Start with insertions, deletions and transposons to consider how genes may change in addition to point mutations. Secondly consider that development and growth is not a simple matter of reading a blueprint in the DNA as you seem to think.