You guys like to point out voter fraud


No, I referenced genetics, not physical similarities. Specifically viral markers.

However there are other fields of study, that, when taken together all tell a similar story that supports evolution…

  1. The fossil record
  2. Changing Morphology
  3. Inherited Morphology
  4. Speciation
  5. DNA similarities (what I’m referring to above)
  6. Remnant Genes

All of these different fields of study come to the same conclusion.


Frogs “share” 94% of their DNA with people. Does that mean we have a common ancestor with frogs? Of course not. It means that the creator used SOME of the same material to create both.


Actually, yes. That’s exactly what it means. Heck, we share DNA with bananas. But if you are translating the percentages in the DNA we share and expect that we should be the same physically, you have a lot to learn.

I can change a single ingredient in a recipe and make something that looks and tastes completely different yet the ingredients are mostly the same. For that matter, when looking at apples and strawberries at a molecular level, it wouldn’t surprise me if the molecules were 99% the same. Perhaps in different quantities, but they are the same. That doesn’t mean that apples and oranges are the same, look the same or taste the same.

The fact is that frogs and humans have an enormous amount of similarities.

4 limbs, 2 eyes, a brain, heart, and other similar organs. We have skin, breath air, hear, walk, eat procreate and the list goes on, and on and on…Which is why we share so much DNA.

As I said before, the most compelling evidence is the viral markers specifically retroviruses that copy their RNA back into DNA once they get inside a cell, and that DNA gets integrated into the host’s genome and copied along with it. Then it gets passed on to offspring.

Then you can use retrovirus as a “marker” to determine how closely related two organisms are. The more retrovirus two living things share, the more closely related they are.

And, when we look in nature that exactly what we find. Humans have more gene markers in common with chimps than mice and so on and more in common with mice than fruit flies and more in common with fruit flies than with bacterium and so on.

Unless you think that god inserted viral DNA into different species in just such a way that is totally consistent with evolution just to throw humans off track when someday they discover genome sequencing. I mean, all god would have had to do is put more common viral markers between humans and bacteria than say in common with chimps and that would disprove evolution…But you want me to believe that it’s a coincidence that viral markers agree with all the other forms of study when it comes to evolution (see my list above)?

Anyone that believes that God did it is just blinding themselves to the evidence.


Not all mutations are damaging genes; i.e., make them inactive overtime. The one that made humans lactose tolerant wasn’t, nor was the mutation that allowed mammals to grow placenta. Nor are chimeric genes like this one found in fish.

He isn’t denying changes beyond that occur. He fully affirms that all life has common ancestry; God merely guides directly/created the mechanisms that allow for it.

He’s still saying it happens.

If mammals and flies use the same switching genes, it is reasonable to think that they inherited them from the same ancestor or ancestors” (182)

I think you’re misunderstanding something.

Darwinism is not the totality of Evolution. There are non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms.

Epigenetics is one, so is symbiogenesis, genetic drift, and horizontal gene transfer.

I see articles of Behe talking about these things, so it seems he is aware of it.


Some mutations are neutral, meaning the new nucleotide results in a codon that codes for the same amino acid. Though I recently read of some experiments in which the e.coli genome was altered in the lab to only use a few codons. All the proteins were identical, so the organism should behave identically, but it reproduced less efficiently. I don’t think they know why. But perhaps “neutral” mutations aren’t so neutral after all.

The original design was that a control would limit the production of lactase as an animal or human matures, but a defective gene broke that control such that many people can now digest milk throughout our lives. That’s an example of a damaging mutation that is positively selected. (If natural selection even applies to humans.)

I don’t know much about the placenta, but it would seem to be a necessary part of the original design. Of course if you assume we evolved, then you assume the placenta evolved. But that’s a religious belief.

You do come up with some interesting stuff. But I suspect that antifreeze protein was part of the original design. Introns and exons and post-translation processing are very odd, but they’re so plentiful that they must have been designed to allow the production of many different proteins out of a few genes. I suspect that stretch of replication was part of the original design too. It was declared evolved because they want it to have evolved.

From what I can see, epigenetics only affects the next or next few generations, but doesn’t change any DNA.

Symbiogenesis sounds like a theory of desperation. The existence of such a theory is a point in favor of Darwinists knowing evolution can’t explain what we see.

Genetic drift can explain changes back and forth with changes in environment, but there are only so many existing alleles. It doesn’t offer anything new. There’s no conflict with it.

Horizontal gene transfer is observed to happen. But it doesn’t shrink the number of permutations a new gene would have to be found in. It just shifts where the random events would happen. It doesn’t solve the problem of the effectively infinite number of permutations evolution would have to sort through to find something useful.


It’s non-damaging as it doesn’t alter gene function, only when it’s on or off.

No genes were made inactive; nothing was broken.

There are non-placental mammals; we could be reproducing some other way.

Viruses. Remember us talking about this?

Viruses encode themselves into DNA. Further, we have observed people become infected with viruses, and pass on altered genes by that infection to their offspring.

We have equally observed traits jump species with a virus as a carrier.

Finally, we can trace viral infections quite far back; such as the bubonic plague in the DNA of medieval-era corpses. We can even trace viral infections in that 5,000 year old corpse we discovered in the Alps.

Putting it all together; we can see which portions of our DNA, the human genome, are the result of ancient infections. It’s a pretty non-trivial % as it turns out.

This is just DNA sequencing Ken. Why not spare some interest to see what it can tell us?

That seems like a self-absorbed way to look at it; you’re framing it as just a continuation of your argument with Evolution, rather than first taking things on their own terms.

Symbiogenesis notes that mitochondria looks strikingly similar to ancient bacteria, and combining that with observations of bacteria which have developed similar symbiotic relationships with one another.

Ergo, it exists because of a convergence in ideas.

It does, because you’re running exponentially more trials in less time.

Putting work in parallel does that, as any CS grad would know.