dscccc,
“so i show that its very likely…”
I don’t know what you are talking about. You didn’t show anything. You said evolution can’t be studied in experiments, and you reference a paper that describes experiments in evolution of a virus. You claim that parallel amino acid residues means parallel mutation, but if the codon is different, it’s not really parallel. It came about by a different mutation pathway, which in the virus in the experiment was clearly because the selection was always for growth at the same temperature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding, which you simply refuse to give up.
“so all the experiments so far prove creation and not evolution.”
“Proof” is a concept that applies in math and logic, not science. You mean “support” or “demonstrate.” But no experiment can support special creation directly, because you can’t run creation again. And in fact many experiments support evolution, including the ones in the phiX174 paper you referenced. You say experiments can support aspects of astronomy. The same is true for evolution, both in terms of experiments in short term evolution and observations of wild populations. Speciation has been directly observed in plants. Dogs and other domesticated species changed their anatomy and behavior recently in evolutionary terms. The behavioral differences, including not fearing humans and barking were duplicated by artificial selection in foxes over a small number of generations. There have been many papers in the last few years on changes in genomes of domesticated species from their wild ancestors. There is a vast literature out there on evolution in the lab, in domesticated species and in wild species which you can search on PubMed or other sites. When you declare the experiments “prove” creation, you are just echoing the creationist sites. You should go roaming around in the biology literature, or at least Dennis’s material here before coming to such a certain conclusion.
“we still have the same mutations in both cavia and human, so according to this- the rat clock is more speedy”
This has nothing to do with a mutation clock, except that there has been plenty of time for mutations to occur and be fixed in all those genomes. You are assuming that the mutations were in the cavia and human, which is not the simple (parsimonious) interpretation. The thing to do is to look at what other mammalian species the sequence is available for. If they all have the same nucleotide at those positions as cavia and human, that makes it even more likely that that is the ancestral sequence and the mutations happened in the rat.
“maybe. do you have another source?”
The source I have is years of comparing sequences in my own research. You could look up plant genome papers pretty easily, but they won’t tell you what the overall DNA sequence identity level is with mammals. Nobody thinks that plants and mammals have a recent common ancestor, so the question isn’t very interesting. You could look up the banana genome on the web, pick a few segments of a few thousand bp outside of genes and without internal repeats and run them against the human genome on a genome browser. My guess is that nothing will match above about 30% identity (~25% would be random.) The only matches you see would probably be in short repetitive sequences “microsatellites.” There would be matches between conserved RNA or protein coding genes, but for protein coding genes they would easier to detect by comparing protein sequences to translated DNA (one of the options on the search services.)
“first: who is talking about milions?”
I am. That’s what the evidence is. Look at the original human genome paper (it’s free.) There is a section on transposable element insertions with a table that gives the numbers of each type. Only about half a percent of those (a few thousand out of over 3 million) are not shared between the human and chimp genomes. That’s in later papers after the chimp genome was sequenced. And this doesn’t include thousands of retrotransposed gene copies and fragments of mitochondrial DNA inserted in the same locations in the two genomes or many thousands of shared haplotypes (patterns of small mutations in an interval short enough that recombination hasn’t separated them,) small insertions and deletions.
“if all the genomes made by the same designer- then even bilions bases can be in the same sites.”
It’s quite true that you can account for the evidence with miracles. But you can account for any conceivable set of evidence by invoking miracles. So how do you tell? If you prefer to invoke miracles, that’s fine, but then there’s no reason to bother with science at all. No matter what is observed, you have it accounted for. You can just believe what you want and spend your time on something else. But why would God make it all by special creations and make it look as if it happened by common descent?
I suppose your response will be that it doesn’t look like common descent, but 98% of the professional biologists, Christian or not, think that it does. (The other 2%, as far as I can tell, are like you in being committed to special creation.) There is no great conspiracy. After working with them for 35 years, I’d say they really are a pretty bright bunch of people - some of them are amazingly brilliant. They are just curious; they work hard; criticize each other’s work, and they want to find out how the world works.