>One thing that particularly bothers me when it's assumed that physical
>similarity between human beings and animals, living or extinct, constitutes
>evidence for the descent of human beings from animals. Rather, I want to
>assume that God creates in a way so that whatever it is, it "fits" into
>this kind of universe. So DNA similarity or any other kind of similarity is
>no more than an indication that it was created to fit.
If the genomes of our animal "cousins" consisted entirely of functional genes,
and we had nothing but functional genes in our DNA, then your rational that
identical genetic sequences don't necessitate common ancestry might hold.
But 97% of our genetic information is non-functional, AND identical pseudogene
sequences also can be found in other higher primates. What would be the
rational for that? Did God create identical "junk DNA" in other animals
that appear to be related in other respects to give us the "appearance of
common ancestry" to go along with the "appearance of age" of a young earth?
Evidence of genetic linkage between man and other higher primates can
also be derived from an endogenous retroviral sequence imbedded in our
DNA that is also found at the same point in the DNA of chimpanzees.
Retroviruses are a class of virus, which includes the HIV virus that
causes AIDS, for example. These viral agents have the ability to annex
themselves directly into a DNA sequence, and an ancient virus apparently did.
The entire genetic code was then passed down from a common ancestor to both
man and chimp including the retroviral sequence. Thus we have markers that
tie us to the animal kingdom. Maybe we don't like it, but how do we differ
from the young-earth crowd if we can't take a dose of facts now and then?
THE ORIGINS SOLUTION