[allmendream]

Not at all. There is nothing to prevent the progenitors of terrestrial vertebrates from having the same gene as ancient Corals and passing it on to their descendent's while many of the fish that stayed in the sea lost this gene.

But how do you explain how well the molecular genomic data comports with common descent? Why is there so much homology between species that the fossil record and morphology indicate share a recent common ancestor, and so much divergence between species that the fossil record and morphology indicate do not share a recent common ancestor? Why is the amount of change mathematically predictable based upon the time of divergence? Why is the majority of change in DNA sequences that do not code for protein?

Evolution through natural selection explains the amount of difference, and the relative abundance of differences (most of it non-Coding differences)? What is the Scientific alternative explanation?

[Southack]

"Not at all. There is nothing to prevent the progenitors of terrestrial vertebrates from having the same gene as ancient Corals and passing it on to their descendent's while many of the fish that stayed in the sea lost this gene."

It's not "many fish."

It's "all fish."

No known Fish has human immune functionality. This is problematic for Evolutionary Theory because ET holds that Coral came first, then Fish from that, then Mammals came from Fish, then Humans came from early Mammals in a sequential process.

But Coral and Humans share something that Fish don't have. How could Mammals get something...then pass it to Humans...if they didn't get it from Fish per ET?!

The Fish passed this functionality to Mammals, then all known Fish dead or alive lost that functionality?!

Preposterous!

[Southack]

"But how do you explain how well the molecular genomic data comports with common descent? Why is there so much homology between species that the fossil record and morphology indicate share a recent common ancestor, and so much divergence between species that the fossil record and morphology indicate do not share a recent common ancestor?"

That's like saying that the fossil record of cars in an old junkyard prove that all cars share a common ancestor and therefor self-evolve.

In reality, a designer explains both of the above, instead. Not self-evolution.

[Southack]

"Why is the amount of change mathematically predictable based upon the time of divergence?"

There's no such math. And yes, that's a challenge to you.

You'll fail.

[Southack]

"Why is the majority of change in DNA sequences that do not code for protein?"

Protein is overrated as DNA's purpose.

[Southack]

"Evolution through natural selection explains the amount of difference, and the relative abundance of differences (most of it non-Coding differences)? What is the Scientific alternative explanation?"

Natural Selection exists, but explains nothing new to the world. Natural Selection merely culls a population. Ergo, Natural Selection limits the abundance of differences.

Evolution WITHOUT natural selection fails to explain modern transgenic animals...fails to explain DNA code skipping...and explains the observable abundance of differences no better for animals than for automobiles stacked in a century-old junkyard.