No one denies that taxonomically closer organisms (i.e., those with closer phenotypes) ought also to have generally more similarity genetically. It should be predicted by anyone, creationist or evolutionist, with any background in genetics.
I see absoloutely no reason for this to be the case at all. There are many possible alternative aa sequences which could perform specific tasksa and even more DNA sequences which could code for these tasks. Other than positing a parsimionious god ther is no reasin at all why a creationist should predict more similarity genetically, at least not outwith the bounds of a 'kind' derived from a common ancestral population. Why should drosophila have a highly conserved homeobox domain and conserved homeobox binding sites, any number of other schemes would have allowed the binding of the requisite factors to the right DNA locus. Why should a creationist predict this?
Could you please provide some examples of "broken" genes that humans and chimps share?
The most commonly given example is the gene for Vitamin C synthesis.
As well as this there is a lot of research into processed pseudogenes which have been rendered non-functional as protein coding genes.
Its hard to rebut your third hand argument about sequence similarity in the absence of any actual reference to real data. If I have the time I'll try to pull together an alignment of the mitochondrial cyt-c sequences for those species, although the rather random nature of the choices seems peculiar, so I might throw in a few more species.
Another important point is that the generational argument is significantly undercut by the fact that the gene is mitochondrial, assuming that they aren't referencing a nuclear copy of cytochrome c, and a mitochondrial gene is going to be someone disconnected from the evolutionary rate of the nuclear genome and certainly more likely to be decoupled from direct generational considerations.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : Forgot to sign
™ Version 4.2