Today, I found two more pieces of scientific data that cause me to continue to doubt evolution as a believable mechanism for origins.

The first was on today’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross, in which Beth Wictum, Acting Director of The Veterinary Genetics Lab at the University of California at Davis discussed forensic uses of animal DNA in solving crimes.  Wictum mentioned that people would love to be able to develop DNA tests for dog pedigree, but that it is very difficult.  Why?  (listen at 18:25)

"Most dog breeds have evolved in the last few hundred years, so they are not that genetically different – between a chihuahua and a doberman, there is not that much difference."

Translation?  Almost all dogs came from a common ancestor within the last few hundreds (or thousands) of years – i.e. exactly what creationists have predicted when they say that Noah could have taken all known animals because they, like humans, all came from a representative of their KIND, and speciated from that point.  So genetics seems to affirm such.  No surprise here.

Second, ID the Future has a nice post entitled Curious Molecular Signatures, in which they discuss recent publications, including a recent study in Science magazine:

It is now well known that the explosion of genome data in recent decades has made its own unique contribution to the ever-growing list of falsified evolutionary predictions. High conservation of functionally unconstrained sequences, nonsensical evolutionary trees, molecular clocks that do not run right, and phylogenies that do not resolve are all contributing to a reevaluation of tree thinking. From superoxide dismutase to glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, incongruities are common. And novel designs in similar species, once assumed to have arisen only once and then passed on via common descent, now must be assumed to have evolved multiple times. So it is hardly surprising that a substantial molecular study, recently reported in Science magazine [310:1933], revealed yet more curious results….

So what went wrong? The researchers explored several possible reasons, including the choice of taxa, particular data issues, and mutational saturation. But none of these seemed to pose a problem. So the study was left with only one conclusion: there must have been "a radiation compressed in time." In other words, the new species appeared in rapid fire sequence.

Translation?  They had to evolve all at once, since the same thing probably did not evolve independently many times.  Um, "appeared in rapid fire sequence" ? That sound exactly like creationism.  When they finally see that we did not evolve (maybe when they meet God), and think back at all of the evidence that was staring in their face, boy are they gonna kick themselves.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.  (Romans 1:20)

Tags: