The different “molecular clocks” of rodents and primates doesn't account for this either.
Two individual animals - unless magical - can only have a maximum genetic diversity of FOUR - IF each individual is a total hetero-zygote at each genetic loci and the mated pair don't have any variations at all in common. Four.
Mice and rats are extremely well adapted - what would you expect them to change into within our lifetime? If you have come to expect the differentiation of the rodent “kind” into mice and rats within a thousand year span you will be disappointed. It took many millions of years to accumulate that much difference in genetic DNA - ten times the difference as between humans and chimpanzees.
You did ask exactly if I thought humans evolved from chimps. Shared a common ancestor is not the same thing.
So can you answer how ten times the amount of genetic difference can be called “micro” and be possible within a thousand year span - but one tenth the difference can only be called “macro” and be impossible even after six million years?
allmendream....
The answer I gave you is from a PhD who is doing genetic research right now. If you won’t accept what he tells you, why would I want to dance with you any further on this? It wouldn’t matter if God Himself refuted you, you wouldn’t accept it anyway.
You have throughout this process refused to answer any questions while insisting everybody else answer yours, all the while mocking and deriding.
I believe I’ll stand right where I am. As I said before... you need to do some soul-searching in regard to Jesus Christ.
I’ll leave you with this which I posted quite a while ago. I’ll repost it here:
One of these statements is true:
1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
3. Matter/Energy spontaneously generated out of nothing.
4. Matter/Energy were created.
Option #1 is falsified by the Scientific Method.
Matter & Energy are observed everyday.
Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states (basically) that energy is running down and we will eventually have no usable energy left. At that point we will suffer “heat death”....the sun can not burn forever, it will eventually run out of fuel. If the universe were eternal, this would have happened already.
One more thing on this.... secular science is all-in on the Big Bang theory, admitting that there was a beginning and therefore the universe is not eternal.
Option #3 - Spontaneous generation is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (By natural processes, energy cannot be created or destroyed), The Law of the Conservation of Matter (By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed although it can change form) and the Law of Cause and Effect (every effect must have a greater and preexistent cause).
That leaves us with Option #4... that matter and energy were created. This does not violate any natural law.
Can I prove that the universe was created? No. I can’t.
However, natural law itself has falsified all the other options..... Naturalists, who believe only in nature and in nothing Supernatural have to ignore natural law to believe what they believe.
Here’s another response allmendream.... this one is from a PhD in Microbiology who has been published 10 times in scientific journals:
“He makes several invalid presuppositions. Is he so indoctrinated with ‘evolution’ that he assumes the creation model is just ‘fast’ evolution? Who says the creation model has to account for genetic descent from the mouse to a rat - in a short or long period of time? The creation model is NOT a model of common descent. That is a key difference between it and evolution. There is no reason to assume that mice and rats began as the same created ‘kind.’ I’m not sure if there is really a 10x difference between them, but if there is, so what? The creation model states that God created “kinds” individually, so it is very easy to assume that mice and rats represent separate created kinds. Thus, the genetic difference between them was placed in their genomes by God at the moment of creation - just as the Bible says (Gen 1 - Kinds were created individually and reproduced after their specific kind). Perhaps what the Bible says is not that important to this “Christian.”
The creation model has no need to account for the genetic difference by a process of mutation (as the evolution model does), since mice and rats don’t have to share a common ancestor. The creation model does not have God creating a proto-type organism and everything ‘evolved’ from that. That is his model, not ours.
Instead, what his model has to explain is the utter lack of genetic evidence that such changes could occur in over long periods of time. Lenski’s work with E. coli shows that over 50,000 generations (1 million years worth of human evolution), the only genetic changes found are degenerative and fall far far far short of the changes evolution would need to account for in a 1 million year period. A follow-up experiment with Fruit Flys is even less supportive. In 600 generations of Fruit Flys there were virtually no genetic changes that occurred, and the authors dejectedly concluded that the results were less than they had anticipated. In other words, from an experimental perspective, evolutionary change driven by mutation (i.e., Neo-Darwinism) could not be supported from the data. Funny this doesn’t seem to be making the ‘public rounds’ too much. On the other hand, both of these experiments are EXACTLY what the creation model would predict. Any genetic changes that do occur (and there can be significant changes, esp. immediate post Fall and post Flood) are degenerative in their nature and not useful for common descent, but certainly capable of introducing variation and diversity among the created kinds.”
schaef21 now speaking: I feel pretty silly, actually. I had accepted your premise.