Replies

From the article:

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence.
Later on the article states:

As stated earlier in prediction 3 , the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973).

As can be seen clearly from the above, the article proposes two contradictory views:
1. That cytochrome c perfectly explains the genealogical tree.
2. That cytochrome c is identical in man and monkeys.

Since man and chimp are from two different genealogical families, the above statements are clearly contradictory. In addition, since man and chimp branched apart over 5 million years ago, it is highly unlikely that if cytochrome c was a molecular clock for evolution (as evolutionists claim) that there would be absolutely no differences in the cytochrome c of man and chimp. Therefore this example is a disproof of evolution. It shows that the building blocks of nature do not follow an evolutionary path. It is also a good example of how evolutionists claim two sets of opposing facts as both being proof of evolution.

You merely distract yourself with the slow ticking of the cytochrome c molecular clock. I can think of no way that it helps you. It's a highly conserved gene to have had only one mutation since humans and chimps diverged. But we know there are differences in mutation rates across the genome, both because some genes are not very mutable (the mutations die) and perhaps also some genes are more actively guarded by repair mechanisms at copy time.

In any event, you have bypassed the actual point of that line of evidence, the spectacular convergence of the cytochrome c tree and the morphological tree. A designer has so much freedom. Why does the Designer of Life always mimic evolution?

since man and chimp branched apart over 5 million years ago..

You really do believe in evolution.

As can be seen clearly from the above, the article proposes two contradictory views:
1. That cytochrome c perfectly explains the genealogical tree.
2. That cytochrome c is identical in man and monkeys.

Since man and chimp are from two different genealogical families, the above statements are clearly contradictory. In addition, since man and chimp branched apart over 5 million years ago, it is highly unlikely that if cytochrome c was a molecular clock for evolution (as evolutionists claim) that there would be absolutely no differences in the cytochrome c of man and chimp. Therefore this example is a disproof of evolution.

Indentical proteins in humans and chimps is a disproof of evolution!?! M-kay...

Note to lurkers: many proteins are identical or very similar in humans and chimps, but by no means all. Generally those that are most variable among species overall are also most variable between humans and chimps. Cytochrome c is among the least variable proteins, and one must compare organisms separated by hundreds of millions of years to find sequence divergences over 50 percent.

Lurkers should read some of the other articles among the 29 evidences concerning molecular data, the point being that there are multiple interlocking patterns that are explained by common descent, but are gratuitous, unaccountable or improbable otherwise. I won't go into the details here, but there are, for instance, families of proteins that evolved from gene duplications. In this case the assumption of common descent requires that certain general patterns must obtain when the same proteins are compared between different species AND when different proteins within the family are compared in a given species AND when the different proteins within a protein family are compared among different species. IOW the sequences must simultaneously betray evidence both of the evolution of one or more protein(s) from another protein AND of the sequential divergences of each protein as the result of subsequent speciation events.