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

Arguments from probability hold little water. There's a number of reasons that the odds are irrelavant.1. Just because we observe one kind of genetic code (DNA) doesn't mean that's the only way it could work. I'm sure chemists could postulate any number of self-assembling, inheritable genetic code structures.2. While you could have any number of "trials" (i.e. situations that would produce DNA-like systems at random), it only has to be succesful once. Once the system is up and running it presrves itself through reproduction.With those two points taken together, consider this analogy. The odds of specifically you (representing one specific DNA-like system) winning the lottery are pretty low. So low that if you did win, you might say "this is so unlikely, God must have had a hand in it." But consider the situation from the lottery board. If a million people buy tickets (the million possibilities for DNA-like systems), the odds that one of them will win is nearly certain.If there's any number of concievable, equivalent DNA-like systems that could exist, the odds that one of them actually exists is pretty good.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

I don't understand why this is contrary to expectations of evolutionary models. Wouldn't we expect to see similarities between primates genetically if all primates are the decendants of a common ancestor?Also, I'm no molecular biologist (simply a layman who likes to think about things) but just because the locations of mutations along the chromosome are statistically non-random, I don't see that it follows that the mutations themselves are non-random and the result of a guiding force. By analogy, in a casino, random events (gambling) occus only in specific areas of the floor, i.e. gaming tables. But simply because the roulette wheel is in the same place every turn doesn't mean that the wheel result itself ceases to be random. (Although if you can find a reason why that isn't so you could make a fortune!)In fact, it would seem that a mechanism that allowed mutation to occur only at specific sites would provide an evolutionary advantage because it would generate a greater percentage of mutations with actual phenotypic change. For better or worse, of course, but such a mechanism would make for a very adaptable organism.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Thanks for continuing the gambling analogy; I really don't have the background to debate molecular genetics at a really technical level. I'll leave that to the experts.Anyway, to continue our analogy - how can some mutations be random and some not? I mean, how could one tell the difference? At the roulette wheel, that seems like it's saying "every time the wheel comes up A, it's a non-random mutation - the other three nucleotide results are random mutations."it seems like you're taking the mutations that are useful or beneficial and saying "these are non-random" even though, at the same location, other, less beneficial mutations occur sometimes as well. It seems like either all mutations must be random, or none are.How could one tell the difference between NRM and RM? If RM is happening all over the genome, how do you know that it's not happening at those specific sites? I mean, to confirm that the mutations are truly non-random you'd have to observe every mutation at that site and discover that every time, the mutation was beneficial. Only then could you determine that the mutation wasn't simply random.Also, if the mutation is non-random, shouldn't it be possible to predict what the mutation will be before it occurs? Predictability would seem to be the opposite of random.Or that's how I see it, anyway.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

But predictions about future discoveries about the past (i.e. fossils that weren't avaliable at the time you made the prediction, but were later found) are indeed predictions. Of course, every prediction is a kind of assumption - you're assuming that your model has predictive power and testing it. If your prediction is born out then your assumption was justified. Sometimes it takes a while to bear out the predictions. (Particle physics leaps to mind.) Other times new dat shows that your prediction can't ever be born out, so it's back to the drawing board.Some other times, you get evidence slightly different than what you predicted. This does't refute your theory but does suggest that it needs to be modified to take new data into account.I'm sure the concept of "double jeopardy" would prevent this from occuring in a court of law, but science doesn't work like a courtroom. All of our models and theories are in constant jeopardy from new evidence, that's why we say the conclusions of science are tentative by nature.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Certainly a single similarity between two animals does not give rise to a full-blown, developed theory of evolution. In the same way, one cannot extrapolate a line (or a trend) from a single point.But scientists have catalogued thousands of telling similarities between disparate species. The evolutionary model, therefore, was developed to explain the striking similarities between many, many animals and fossils. That one model can explain so much data is what makes it a very robust theory. If you deny evolutionary explanations then you need an ad hoc hypothesis for each individual case of similarity between species.The evolutionary model is inferred from a vast weight of separate data points. This is called "recognizing a trend." Do you then argue that this is an inappropriate way to analyze data? You should be prepared to demonstrate why, as the utility of generalizing data and establishing explanations is quite well demonstrated. It's the basis of science, you know. I don't understand what you mean by ToE having no mechanism for itself. The mechanisms are simple: heritable variation and natural selection. These two mechanisms are all that is needed to produce the diversity of life on Earth from a single ancestor. (Where that first ancestor first came from is not a part of the theory.) Both of these mechanisms have been modeled, tested, and verified. Given these two mechanisms, the ToE itself is a body of hypotheses concerning the evolutionary development of specific species. This is the historicity aspect of evolution. I'm sorry, your qualification to make sweeping changes about what is and what is not biologically possible stems from what? Personal incredulity, as many have pointed out, is not an appropriate argument. I'm sorry but I don not see you as the source of what is and is not possible.Consider that an organism is grown from scratch as part of its pre-natal development. Changes to gross body plan are not uncommon (human babies born with extra toes, without arms, etc all attest that gross body plans can be changed without terminal damage to the individual. For instance, the unfortunate case of the thalydimide babies - individuals born without arms, legs, or both continue to survive to adulthood.) Consider also that many species of insect undergo drastic metamorphosis where their bodies are literally reduced to component cells and built again. (Did you think that cocoon was magic?) Drastic body plan change is common in the animal world. Of course, it's only "change" to us. To the individual, they've always been that way. They were born that way. Again, how do you know? If the limbs are growing in that way to begin with (evolutionary biologists conclude that evolution in gross body plan is linked to the genes that control body development during gestation), why would anything have to be severed? If you would only look you would find that biologists have models for these scenarios. The details have been largely postulated. But they may not make sense to you (they only barely do to me) without a better grounding in both genetic and developmental biology. Potentially, hing legs could be made useless (and therefore out of the way, an advantage for a water-living organism) with changes to a few control genes.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

This is simply nonsensical. Science doesn't work like this. Individual, singular observations can't be used to infer a hypothesis because by definition, a hypothesis is a conjecture to generalize and explain a great many observations! It's like trying to define a line with only one point. There's just not enough information to do it.It'd be like trying to infer a theory of gravity from one single observation of an object falling. It's not enough data. You can't prove universal gravitation with one object, and you can't infer an evolutionary model with only one datum.But taken in total, a weight of observations suggests a hypothesis that generalizes and explains all of them. If you expect science to work differently you don't understand how science works. Thanks, you've made my point for me. Because prenatal development follows specific directional instructions, a small number of mutational changes to those instructions can effect great morphological change in the organism.(By way of defending my word use, it's still "scratch" if you're following a recipe. Haven't you ever made biscuits?)------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.