Kent Hovind, "Dr." Dino, wrote the following:
Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item
and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that
human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the
sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what
you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are
closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What
do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest
to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It
depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there
were not some similarities between us and other animals we could
only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code
so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not
proof for evolution. It's proof of a common Designer!
The above was taken from a Word document version of his online
seminar. He has pulled from his web site in favor of a long
video file. (This post is based on some of my previous writings.)
Needless the say the claims being made here are all false.
For heaven's sake the cytochrome c closest to humans is
a chimp. In fact human and chimp cytochrome cs could not be
more similar since they are identical. So how a sunflower's
cytochrome c could closer than a chimp is rather hard to
imagine. But in fact, a sunflower's version is more
different than a human's than any animal's version. Just as one
would expect if evolution is true.
Lets compare cytochrome c sequences for various organisms. Each
letter represents a different amino acid. V for example stands
for valine.
(
Here is a table.)
Cytochrome c, like any protein, is a sequence of amino acids strung
together. Similarity is determined how close the sequences are.
Non-technical readers might think it as how close their "spelling"
is to each other. Spaces are have no signficance, they are added
to make it easier to read the data. Now here are the cytochrome c sequences
for some organisms.
Code:
Corn
asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan
knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a
Sunflower
asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan
knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a
Human
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw
gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Common Chimpanzee
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw
gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
Rabbit
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgfsytd anknkgitwg
edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkde radliaylkk atne
Bullfrog
gdvekgkkif vqkcaqchtc ekggkhkvgp nlygligrkt gqaagfsytd anknkgitwg
edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifagikkkge rqdliaylks acsk
Now if evolution is true, than one should have some expection
of the data shown above. Chimp cytochrome c should be
closest to human followed by rabbit, bullfrog, and finally the
two plants. That is, of course, what we see. If the sunflower
really did have the closest cytochrome c to humans than evolutionists
would have some
serious explaining to do. But the data
agrees with evolution rather well.
So why does Kent Hovind
claim that a sunflower has the closest cytochrome c to humans?
It shows that he has a serious honesty problem. A problem
that is rather common in creationist circles. It also illustrates
that if evolution was false, a type of observation which would
blow evolution out of the water. Hovind's sunflower claim is
clearly not possible if evolution is true. Thousand of similiar
possibilities also could falsify evolution. They are not being
made. It almost certainly is because evolution is true.
Click
here for a chart showing percent differences between the cytochrome c sequences of various organisms.
Click
here for some more sequences.
Actually the whole range of claims that I quoted Hovind as saying
above are false and are part of a group of claims that the
creationists have been falsely been making for decades. See
"The Bullfrog Affair" for
details.
Also see:
Sequences and Common Descent - Debunks another false creationist cytochrome c claim.
Compelling Data for Common Descent - More advanced treatment than the above.
Invariant Cytochrome C Sequences Disprove Evolution? - Debunks yet another false creationist cytochrome c claim.
Linear Mode
