Replies

Many, many more inferences are possible. For instance say we find a gene that is very similar among almost all vertebrates, except say Birds. Again, if common descent is true then there must be some reason for this. This automatically clues us in that the biological process associated with this gene must be different somehow in birds. It's either become less constrained or there has been a functional shift. (And then we can look at comparisons within birds to see which of those explanations is more likely.)

Here's the only real meaning for genetic similarities. If the genes are very similar or the same, the biological process associated with this gene is very similar or the same.

If the genes are not the same, the biological processes are not the same.

No evolutionary descent 'relationship' is indicated. It is *imposed* by the initial assumption (i.e., that common descent is 'true').

A puzzle for you:

If this is true and similar sequences are indicative of similar functions and not relatedness, why is it that a deficit of a protein in one organism can be corrected by the introduction of that protein from a different species (and thus having a different sequence)? You are assuming that differences in sequence are due to slight differences in function, while most of the time these differences make no difference at all--some of them don't even change the protein amino acid sequence. Why would an intelligent designer make a bunch of proteins with slightly different coding sequences, yet with the same properties? And why would he make it so that organisms that seem to be closely related (lions and house cats) have fewer of these functionally insignificant differences, while those that are distantly related (lions and opossums) have many more? To me it looks like either these differences are another piece of evidence indicating common ancestry and evolutionary relationships or else the intelligent designer is purposefully trying to trick us.

You have a very simplistic view of genes, just like creationist I once argued with who had a simplistic view of why fossils are ordered the way that they are... "because the more advanced animals run faster and therefore got to the top sooner!"

If the genes are very similar or the same, the biological process associated with this gene is very similar or the same.

Incorrect. We carry the same genes for growing a tail, but most all expressions of these genes result in harmful deformities.

If the genes are not the same, the biological processes are not the same. Also incorrect.

Read up on convergent evolution.

Your theory that "similar genes = similar functions, therefore, similar organisms = similar DNA" falls flat on its face, period. Anything built by endless generations of improvisements will look radically different than anything built from the ground up. Our genetic history, with endless leftovers that used to encode for one specific function and now not serving any known purpose whatsoever, looks far more like the former than the latter.

No evolutionary descent 'relationship' is indicated. It is *imposed* by the initial assumption (i.e., that common descent is 'true').

I take it you've lost a paternity suit recently.