I'm not quite sure what your objections are to what Mick said.
Excuse me? I thought only 97% of the most diverse creatures' DNA is similar.
What does this mean? Is it that within a particular species even the most diverse members are 97% similar throughout their genome (a number far too high top be likely)? Or does it mean that the most divergent organisms, say a thermophilic archaebacteria and a giraffe for arguments sake, share 97% similarity in some particularly conserved protein?
Don't you think the GTCAs of DNA would get confounded over time quicker than most scientists can observe.
Nope, in fact there any number of papers where experimenters have followed the variation in genetic sequences over time in bacterial cultures. And even less so in the case of organisms with longer generation times.
Can you explain and tell me the genome of a plant that lived in the "Antediluvian" period, if there was such aperiod in Earth's brief history?
How can this be relevant to Mick's comments on the diversity seen in species living on the planet
today? He isn't arguing that we can trace the genetic evolution through from ancestral DNA, simply that the diversity seen within species is too high, based on current rates, to have been generated from only a few breeding pairs in the few thousand years since the flood.
TTFN,
WK
™ Version 4.2