Replies

It's irrelevant whether the creationist questioner selects humans and lobsters, or pinaples and 'possums. All such questions may produce snickers from an ignorant audience (such as those who admire Johnson), but the scientific response to all these rhetorical questions is the same. All species on earth fit into the Tree of Life, which indicates that all species are related by common descent. The "tree" is the result of a century and a half of research. All the data fits, as predicted.

When two apparently closely-related species are compared, their genetic codes are remarkably similar, as their shapes and chronological sequences suggested before the discovery of DNA. DNA is the killer argument against all claims that the tree of life is arbitrarily assembled to make a backwards fit to the theory of evolution.

The farther appart two species are on the evolutionary tree, the more their codes diverge, but if we trace backward in time, they do converge on common ancestry. There is no evidence to contradict this. All the evolution-deniers have going for them are dumb creationist questions.

Both the Tree and DNA studies are equally applicable to Common Design as to Common Descent.

Is anyone surprised that DNA reveals the design of Chimpanzees is closer to man than Ratfish? NO. Not evolutionists, not creationist, not anybody with two eyes who have ever seen both.

But it doesn't answer the question of how ratfish, chimps and man got here. All evolutionists have is an assumption.

Evolutionionists have made numerous predictions that have not been true and new observations are routinely incorporated as "predictions" after the fact. Vestigial organs and junk DNA are just some of the bad predictions.

Evolutionists have played several games to arrive at their current theory. You throw out enough predictions and eventually something matches the data. You observe from the fossil record what you think is a pattern of progression and then you incorporate that as a prediction. If it doesn't match your predictions you coin fancy terms and adjust your positions such as "punctuated equilibrium" and "convergent evolution". And then those things become "predictions" as though you had thought of them all along.