Want Some Answers ???


Hi Robert,

>>sorry I lapsed for a while. so, explain how we share 50% of our genetic material with single celled animals, and more and more percent with animals that look more and more like us? This points to evolution. Robert<<

Walt Brown in his book "In the Beginning" has information on this. [a] The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Techniques now exist for measuring the degree of similarity between forms of life. These 'genetic distances' are calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes required converting a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer relationship. Similar comparisons can now be made between the genetic material (DNA and RNA) of different organisms.

These studies contradict the theory of evolution. [b] There is not a trace of evidence at the molecular level for the the traditional evolution series: simple sea life - fish - amphibians - reptiles - mammals. [c] Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated. [d] One computer based study using cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. If evolution happened, this study should have found that, eg, the rattlesnake was most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, based on this one protein, the rattlesnake was most similar to man. Hundreds of similar contradictions have been discovered.

Its claimed the Human Genome Project revealed that genes for at least 223 proteins found in humans are the same as those found in bacteria. This finding has been promoted as evidence life evolved from a single cell to human beings.

John Mackay comments: "Actually, all it proves is there are certain components that all living cells must have in order to function. For example, all living cells have to make energy, maintain their cell membranes, take in nutrients and expel waste products. The cellular machinery to do these things is, of necessity, very similar in all living cells. Therefore, it is not surprising that we find similar genetic instructions for these functions in bacteria as well as humans. To use the presence of similar components in different living organisms as evidence of evolution is as silly as claiming that four wheel drive vehicles evolved from wheelbarrows because they both have wheels. Four wheel drives and wheelbarrows have wheels because their creators found these to be the best solution for locomotion across solid ground.

In a similar way, the logical (but unpopular) interpretation of similar genes in different living organisms, is that it is excellent evidence that all living cells were designed by an intelligent Creator who knew they would all have to carry out certain functions, so designed the appropriate "best solution" machinery, and installed it in the cells

Hope this helps.


[a] W. Brown "In the Beginning" CSC 1995 pg.13,54.

[b] Dr. Cohn Patterson is the Senior Principal Scientific in the Paleontology Dept at the British (Natural History). In a talk he gave on 5 Nov.1981, to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History, he compared the amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson pointed out to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, "The theory a prediction; we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely". Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, the thrust of his entire talk was that he now realized "evolution was a faith" he had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way, "and evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life]." "Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory," Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by L.D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Patterson's presentation see; T. Bethell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper's Magazine, Feb. 1985, pp.49-61.

K.G.Field, 'Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom' Science vol.239 12 Feb.1988 pp.748-753.

"..it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...." Christian Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.280.

"It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm took shape.... One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature." Ibid., p.282.

[c] M.Denton "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" Burnett Books Lon. 1985, p.285

[d] "The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series." Ibid., p.289.