NO, NO, NO!!! You can't say they had different common ancestors for the very reason that the ancestor is either common or different, not both!!! Sheesh!!
At the risk of unraveling the fog that I've managed to knit so far, consider this. Why is it that a protein which nourishes the developing embryo in the egg, vitellogenin, shows common stretches of DNA sequence? I'm not talking chimps and humans here, I'm talking frogs, chickens, lizards, bees, the banana prawn (it does exist, honest, I've just pulled the sequence out on a Blast!), zebrafish, killifish, fruit flies, silkworms. The unusual thing about this protein is that it isn't an enzyme so doesn't need to conserve (keep unchanged) any active site. It's a food storage protein so it can mutate at pretty high rates without the same deleterious effects as mutation in the active site of an enzyme. Now, why on earth should the gene for the protein in the silkworm have common stretches with the gene in frogs or chickens? Any chance that one may have been based on the other? How about them actually evolving?
Whatever, I'm sorry to say that your general grasp of any science subject is atrocious, you're throwing in scientific terms that you don't know the meaning of, but you think sound good. Some of your posts have made me think, although maybe not in the way that you wanted me to. I can see why the idea of the Creator using a single blueprint to create everything is attractive to you - it's the only way you can look evidence for evolution in the face, yet still hold on to your "theory". You're now trying to shoehorn evolution into the Creation story and the ideas get wilder and wilder, just like your "fountains of the deep" and the ark!
Do you really want to learn anything here? We're willing to try to teach you, but only if you can refrain from posting contradictory ideas which purport to support each other. If you can't see your own contradictions, you'll never see the contradictions in the creationist websites that you believe as if they were Gospel (pun intended). I've already pointed out fundamental and fatal flaws in the hydroplate theory as it is written now, yet you either can't or won't see them. Sadly everyone else can, so you're fooling no-one but yourself.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to approach this with an open mind, neither holding to one belief or another and see where the evidence leads you - good evidence, that it, not pseudoscience written by people who can't see the holes in their own theories.
™ Version 4.2
