Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence

How can the Flood explain biogeography ? According to the Flood story all the surviivng animals ended up at a single location. How they spread out from there is the issue and there is no reason to suppose that that would have anything to do with the biological relationships.Want to explain why Australia had, for instance, "marsupial wolves" rather than wolves ?You need to do more research on polystrate fossils. They were explained in the 19th Century. This article refers to that explanation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.htmlBy your comparison it seems that you think DNA is a simple structural material with very little variation. That is not true - the primary function of DNA is not structural, the sequence of the constituent units codes for the protiens which are used to make up the organism. It is not just a repetitive structure of identical elements as our analogy suggests.
The number of chromosomes has very little to do with complexity. Especially in plants where the entire genome is quite often duplicated in reproduction (polyploidy). And you have to remember that modern ferns will be different genetically from their ancient ancestors.

quote:

---

... For instance, check this site out:

​

http://www.biology.wustl.edu/faculty/Chilsonresearch.html

​

It reveals that the rat enzyme AMP deaminase (and the chicken AMPD as well) are more closely related to humans than that of a rabbit.

​

This conflicts with evolution pretty harshly.

---

What the page actually says is :"The first twenty-five residues of these fragments are 88.5% identical; the rabbit and chicken segments are greater than 92% and 84% identical, respectively, to the sequences predicted for residues 310 to 335 for AMPD.M from human and rat. "So the rabbit sequence is is 88.5% identical to the chicken sequence - but 92% identical to the human and rat sequences. The human and rat sequences are 84% identical to the chicken sequence.So the rabbit sequence is closer to the rat and human sequences than it is to the chicken sequence (92% is greater than 88.5%). The chicken sequence is definitely not closer to humans than the rabbit sequence is and this data does not contradict evolution.Might I also ask why if you insist on researching the "legitimate science with as little bias as possible" you keep referring to Kent Hovind who offers nothing of the sort while rejecting talk.origins which does ?