Looks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck...

The revolution in molecular biology over the past sixty years now permits examination of the biochemical constituents of life to a high degree of detail. It has been possible for many years now to determine the precise make-up of many important proteins and nucleic acids, such that the specific types of these molecules that occur in different species may be compared and degrees of divergence quantified.

Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there appear to be several genetic pathways to the same end. For example, most species of frog look essentially the same but their molecules differ as much from one another as do the molecules of the various mammalian families. Hence the relationship between phenotype and genotype is not as straightforward as it once seemed.

Much has been made of the high degree of convergence seen in the genomes of chimpanzees and humans. By some estimates, chimps are more closely related genetically to humans than to other sub-human primates, with up to 99% genetic convergence. Yet would anyone ever mistake a chimpanzee for a human being? The information contained within the DNA sequences and subsequently expressed must differ radically in order to account for the distinct and undeniable differences in phenotype. This point seems lost on some Darwinian biologists, who claim that "where it counts" the higher primates are nearly identical. The use of that phrase "where it counts" betrays a great deal of unspoken philosophy. At best, the genetic data corroborate the system of classification of Linnaeus; they do not confirm Darwin's theory of how these organisms came to be in the first place.

Recall that the key problem with the fossil record is the near-absence of the all-important transitional forms. Cellular chemistry also lacks the kind of consistent progression the Darwinist should expect to see from his theory. Studies of cytochrome c show a divergence range of 64-66% among animals as compared to a species of bacteria. Organisms as diverse as silkworms and kangaroos and humans therefore exhibit about the same degree of divergence from bacteria with no evidence of any intermediate forms. To take another, even more fundamental example: All living organisms used to be classified as either prokaryotes (no true nucleus--the bacteria) or eukaryotes (a nucleus contained within a membrane--the plants and animals). Based on recent RNA studies, it appears there are actually two distinct forms of bacteria, now renamed eubacteria and archaebacteria, that are so radically different from each other that they can have no common origin. This leaves us with three disparate kingdoms that cannot have a common ancestor, yet the Darwinist insists that they must, otherwise did life arise spontaneously not just once but three times?