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.
A sequence divergence of 50% is humongous. The sequence of DNA is what encodes the function of a protein. Most proteins do not allow anything close to such change without losing function. In part 3 of the article posted cytochrome c was given as supporting evidence for evolution due to its malleability and its use to tell what species (supposedly) came first. The point of my argument is that the article "proving" evolution is self-contradictory.