Altered Beast: Looks-like Doesn't Mean Is-like

Genetics are a wonderful thing! We all have 'em!

In addition to giving humanity hundreds of new and effective medicines, genetics research has also debunked a number of old wives tales that have plagued history through the ages, such as the Cooks Arrow fable, claiming that a Hawaiian arrow head was carved out of the bone of British explorer, Captain James Cook.
Another mighty exploit of genetics research is to finally bring down another fable of slightly greater proportions: Evolution.

Genetics is the bane of Darwinists! Just when everything seemed to be going their way, Francis Crick had to come along and discover DNA, now known to be the building blocks of life on earth. When discovered, Genetics was the hope of Darwinists to finally stamp out the arcane beliefs of the superstitious population of earth (i.e. religious people). Through mathematical probabilities, it should be simple to show the phylogeny of "related" species down through time. Yet, the hopes of Darwinists shortly gave way to fatalism in face of the evidence (which is why evolutionary bilogoists don't dwell on it).

This quote appeared in the magazine Science, November 1980:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomeno of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

How damaging has genetic research been to the evolutionary faith? First consider this Coelacanth and Lungfish are (still) considered to be close relatives, as well as link-species in the lineage of the recently discovered Tiktaalik roseae. But the 1997 mappings of their genomes has not bourn out this classification. In an article discussing the problems of Clelacanth-Lungfish progeny, the Lungfish genome is found to be at least 35 times larger than Coelacanths:

Noonan said that coelacanth’s close relative, the lungfish, could also fill in the genetic gap between land animals and fish, but the coelacanth has one practical advantage: “The lungfish genome is enormous,” said Noonan, who is now a postdoctoral fellow at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. At 35 times the size of the human genome, sequencing the lungfish is an unlikely proposition. In contrast, the coelacanth genome is smaller than that of either humans or mice.

So by genetic (true scientific) ways of reconning, Coelacanth and Lungfish are about as related as Ecoli bacteria and elephants!! If you don't like my conclusions, listen to the observations of another scientist out of SanDiego, CA:

Upon reviewing the molecular phylogenetics it is quite clear that the relationship between teleosts, tetrapods, coelacanths and lungfish is not resolved. Different datasets tend to support different hypotheses, and generally none of the separate datasets, or even combined data, deliver really decisive support for a single tree. There are obviously many gene specific molecular evolutionary artefacts. The project could expect to resolve the phylogeny, and as this has been used as a test case, would contribute to improved models of gene evolution underlying phylogenetic analyses - possibly better algorithms.

So in spite of the evidence that their theories are completely wrong and disproved, they still hold on to the belief that there is an evolutionary model out there, yet to be discovered, that holds the key to consistency between evolutionary taxonomy and documented genetics.

Evolutionists use nice paintings and simplistic drawings to show what, to the casual observer, appears to be clear descendency of species from protozoa to modern man. But in the face of genetic evidence, their theories fall like Enron stock prices!

I would assert, I think reasonably, that related species must have related genomes. If the genomes are widely different, then the species cannot be related. I would further assert that no animal species is closely related to man. Man is the special creation of God, set apart, and in God's image. Any superficial resemblances with Chimpanzes are just that: superficial.

In all likelyhood, the dogs are related to each other. The cats are related to each other. The apes are related to each other. The ants are related to each other. But the ants are not related to the apes which aren't related to the cats which aren't related to the dogs (and would tell you so if they could talk).