What they won't say about Evolution., page 2

Originally posted by BlackJackal
As far as your argument for evolution neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why a creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all of his created life forms. This is evidence for Intelligent design not evolution, let me explain.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee similarity, noting that chimpanzee�s have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimps. Why shouldn�t they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Cytochrome DNA is not morphologically related, because the order of the amino acids in a certain part of the protein does not change it function. This is allows us to look at genes that are not dependant on the physiology of the organism. There are many other genes like this for all the organisms, like ubichinon and DNA-synthase, and the number of the genes is even larger if you only want to look at relations within a certain group, like the mammals. You can look at the differences in the genes that code for hemoglobin or enzymes required for the myelinzation of the longer nerve-cells. We can also take a look at redundant genes or junk DNA. This is not related to the morphological features of the species.
We can also look at mytochondrial DNA. Mytochondria have seperate DNA, not related with the DNA of the organism. Although the form of the organism may favour certain versions of the enzymes used in the mytochondria, we can use the junk DNA of the mytochondria to check for similarities between species.

Similarities, whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else are better explained in terms of a common creator than by evolutionary relationships. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor in the primordial soup. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

DNA always undergoes some kind of change over long periods. In different environments with different selection factors, different mutation are positive and different are negative. Some species will develop in a different direction than others, depending on their environment (biogical and abiogical selection factors).

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence, such as Cytochromes, as proof of evolution. However, as noted by anthropologist Roger Lewin in his book Family Feud on page 39, the genetic evidence contradicts the fossil record.

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.

Different genes might tell different stories, not very different stories, but somewhat different stories. That's why we look at universal genes like the cytochrome DNA and retrovirus DNA, which is easily identifiable.

Dr. Lewin also notes in his book that genetic data is inconsistent with the fossil record but also with the comparative morphology or the creatures. In this quote taken from page 36 Lewin notes just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian proof

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores is in fact more closely related to the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duck billed platypus is equal evolutionary footing with kangaroos and koalas.

There are many many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

Interesting, but not bizarre. It would be bizarre if we found that a cow is more related to a fungus of zygomyceta kind than to a horse. I do enough about these comparisons and the genes involved in the research, but I can guess that maybe they were caused by looking at genes related to morphology or that maybe the DNA comparison is sometimes better than the normal morphological ways of constructing trees.

Evolutionists commonly insist however, that abiogenesis is a fact anyways, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an open system with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of the system rather than decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

The evolutionists are right and your argument does nothing to disprove it. You say heat, not energy, increases the entropy of a system. That is true. However, external energy can be used to lower the entropy of a system. See that I say energy and not heat? If energy couldn't be used to lower entropy, we would also not be able to build buildings, where we use energy to lower the entropy of a certain area and a certain groups of stones and glass.

Also, the secon law rules out evolution altogether because evolution has neither a guiding program or an energy conversion mechanism. Mutations are not organizing mechanisms, but disorganizing. They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial(at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only sieve out the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the exsisting order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof evolution, past or present.

Mutations can become a positive influence in combination with environmental conditions. You see, a random mutation can cause an enzyme to function completely different. This can be both good or bad, depending on the environmental conditions. Bad mutations are more common than good ones, but if a mutation occurs, the organism dies. Good mutations give the organism an advantage. Good mutations survive, bad ones die out. If new mutations give a certain enzyme a new function or changes it's old function, it can create new order.