Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense

[QUOTE][b]Evoluitoists get so excited when they see that the ribosome of a cow is so similar to that of man or that the Hox genes of an insect are a simpler version of our Hox genes. Of course this is also evidence of a common creator[/QUOTE][/b]Why is it that we have such similarities despite the fact that the genetic code is degenerate? While we're at it, why is the Creator using the same sequences over and over again? It seems that you are arguing that humans are made out of the same sequences that insects and primates are. How is that perspective *philosophically* or *theologically* different from saying that we are *descended* from primates and share a common ancestor with insects -- either way our biochemistry originates within other living things. I would suspect that a Creator of infinite capability who makes everything from scratch would use a nearly infinite variety of genetic sequences and we would share *no* genes with other living things. Why did this YE Creator you presuppose simply recycle bits and pieces of genetic material from earlier living things and arrange them into humans (see Question #2 and Comment #1 above) instead of investing everything into His masterpiece? It sounds almost as if He was short of Creative juices.Also, how do you account for human endogenous retroviral elements conserved from primates?

[QUOTE][b]I don't subscibe to macroevoltuion because I believe God created man in his triune image (in spirit, soul and body).[/QUOTE][/b]How far do you go with that? If we are like God in anatomy then are we like Him in biochemistry? [QUOTE][b]I don't believe the gneders, sex or emotions evolved only for purposes of survival (man and woman are pictures of Christ and his church for example).[/QUOTE][/b]This is where my question above is headed. If we are pictures of God, and animals are much like us, does that make them somewhat pictures of God as well? Surely then if we feel we are better than animals because we are so near to God then the animals must be very different from us. Why then do they share DNA with us? [QUOTE][b]You can't deny that it would be rather odd to use something other than a ribosme in each creature. The DNA coding - why bother change it[/QUOTE][/b]Re-using the same coding is like deliberately reducing the diversity of the final product. Can you start with an abstract painting and turn it into a copy of the Mona Lisa and it still have parts that are definitively an abstract painting? Not in any form I can think of. When you use modified parts of the genome of one organism to produce a new type of organism out of that genome it limits the outcome somewhat. All the animals we see around us are variations on a theme, same basic genetic code, with quite a few sequences conserved, and same basic metabolic pathways. Did it have to be that way? Or could an infinite Creator have produced nearly infinite diversity were it not so? [QUOTE][b]Tell me more about the retroviruses. How do we know that they didn't infect both man and ape separately?[/QUOTE][/b]That viral DNA lodges into a host germ line cell permanently is unusual, and that the germ cell "prophage" lives to give rise to offspring is even more unlikely. If other primates get the same retrovirii lodged in their genomes because of the same mutations at the same sites without inheriting the DNA from a common seems highly unlikely. If the HERV is on the same site, then it really stretches plausibility that they arose in parallel.One quick overview of HERVs. (And if other people have information please share it.)
http://www.nature.com/nsu/000907/000907-12.html

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 05-15-2002]

I'll give credit where it is due...your view of DNA/RNA/protein synthesis in comparison to the trinity is interesting and unusual. Also thanks for refering me to Proverbs 8, it is useful for my studies.