Yeah, right, including near-perfect duplication of sequencing errors in near relations, including near-perfect duplication of junk DNA in near relations. (remember, to the designer, there is no such thing as a "relation")
Why does the designer keep throwing away all the old designs and creating new ones that are really similar to the old ones?
>>Yeah, right, including near-perfect duplication of sequencing errors in near relations, including near-perfect duplication of junk DNA in near relations. (remember, to the designer, there is no such thing as a "relation")<<
I disagree. After all, have you ever noticed just how much a Chrysler LeBaron has in common with a Chrysler Minivan of the same vintage?
BTW, they both had bad valve seals in their V6 engines in the early nineties.
I see all of creation as biological machines and I most defintitely believe in evolution. But I call it De-evolution. The matching junk is not enough evidence, since the near relations could be what is causing the de-evolution of the dna resulting in "junk."
It is like saying a red mustang and a red Yugo both had common ancestry becuase their paint oxidizes differently than blue cars. When in fact we know it is because sunlight is harder on red than blue because it absorbes more of the damaging radiation.
So far, the various "common ancestry" theories are still just stabs in the dark and miss the bigger point. But I am all for studying the similarities. It leads to all sorts of hard discoveries of ways to treat genetically related illnesses, etc. And it is just plain interesting to reverse engineer life.