Of course you could. You could think God made them that way. How is it that creationists like Duane Gish have been accomplished biochemists? Understanding how the sequences work is distinct from a theory of where they came from anyway, isn't it?
Of course you could. You could think God made them that way. How is it that creationists like Duane Gish have been accomplished biochemists? Understanding how the sequences work is distinct from a theory of where they came from anyway, isn't it?
'God made them that way' has no predictive value. Let's say we sequence the genome of a new species. We know nothing about the biochemistry of this species (this is happening more and more; gene sequencing is so powerful and classical biochemistry so slow the former now almost always leads the latter). We'd like to identify the genes as far as we can. So what do we do? We compare them with genes from a better known species, one as closely related as possible, and infer that what codes for a serine kinase, say, in species 1, is probably also a serine kinase in organism 2. That works if we believe in evolution. However, if we don't believe in evolution, we start with a tabula rasa in every new case. Why, after all, should the creator have used a set of common blueprints? Why would he use similar genes for a serine kinase in two birds, and a different one in a tunicate?
(Of course, what would really happen is the hypothetical creationist would use the same relationships to assign the gene products, denying to himself that he was implictly accepting species 1 and species 2 had a recent common ancestor)
Or we could beleive that God was deliberately making the entire genome of every species deceptively suggest an evolutionary origin, in order to test our faith. And in rebuttal to that, I can only quote Einstein: Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber Boshaft ist Er nicht.
BTW, I was wondering why I hadn't heard of an 'accomplished biochemist' by the name of Duane Gish. So I did a SciFinder search. As far as I can trace, Gish wrote between 25 and 30 papers over a 20 year period, between 1952 and 1972, long before the era of genomics. A publication rate of a tad over 1 paper a year for 20 years stretches the definition of 'accomplished' - he wouldn't get tenure these days. Since then all he appears to have done is run this Creationist institute racket. So the answer is, he was able to survive before genomics; it would be far more of an obstacle today.