How do creationists explain applications of common descent in modern comparative genomics?

[pitabread]

I added a couple additional references on the OP. The first is a paper on comparative genomics methodologies: Comparative genomics: methods and applications.

The second is a slide show: phylogenetic footprinting (a specific method for comparing genomic sequences). It touches on some of the usage of phylogenetic trees in these analyses (see slides 13 & 14).

For those who may be interested.

 

[inquiring mind]

God made “everything” in His way, with His understanding and in His time reference, none of which man will ever fully comprehend or science will ever fully discover. Only through faith (that is made easy so even a non-scientist can have it) will we be able to come to terms with it... it’s that simple. That is not saying that science isn’t valuable to us, because it is in many, many ways as they are revealed to us (yes, through scientific inquiry). However, when it comes to God’s mysteries they may look a certain way or even act a certain way, and yes tests can be made sometimes to see if certain mysteries are explainable in any way, but man will never be able to say this is exactly how it was done or this is exactly the way it works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But in a way, it doesn't really have to be explained?

Yes. At least, if you care about being rationally justified in your beliefs...

If God created man, animals, plants, and obviously He used genes to direct development and procreation, just as He uses internal organs to carry out normal life functions, why should it be surprising that there are great similarities?

It's not about mere similarities. It's about the pattern of distribution thereof...
Evolution predicts a very specific distribution: nested hierarchies. And that is exactly the pattern we observe in living things.
"special creation" predicts no such pattern. If anything, it predicts anything BUT such a pattern.
Because it inevitably results in "baggage" and inefficient use of energy and resources.
Not a single human designed product false into nested hierarchies. Not even products from the same manufacturer and brand. Not even single productlines. Take a smartphone model, any smartphone model. iPhones, Samsung Galaxy series, Nokia/Microsoft Lumia series, blackberries,... Not a single one of them falls into a nested hierarchy.
To have a designed product line fall into a nested hierarchy... you'ld have to do it on purpose - and go out of your way to accomplish it.

Especially when things "work"? Each creature when it reproduces, reproduces in kind. So what does it matter if there are great similarities, as long as you don't have dogs inadvertently giving birth to kittens.

If dogs would produce cats, evolution would instantly be falsified.
Tell me... what would falsify special creation?

Likewise, should it matter if man, elephants, tigers, and mice all breathe with lungs, since lungs "work"?

What about whales and dolphins? Why give those lungs? Why not gills, like all other "fish"?

Would it be more "proof" of creation if every creature had its own kind of breathing organs?

Yes.

I suppose it would, but apparently that wasn't the way God chose to make things happen.

So.... no matter how life looks like... god did it, and that's final? Is that what you're saying?

my faith doesn't rest upon particular interpretations of creation

Good for you. Although I find it curious then, that you seem to have religious issues with scientific consensus of the biological sciences...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Only through faith (that is made easy so even a non-scientist can have it) will we be able to come to terms with it... it’s that simple.

*considers nearly 9 years of trying to find faith unsuccessfully* simple idea, but not simply had. Like the idea of owning a kilogram of gold. Possible? Yes. Easy? No.

However, when it comes to God’s mysteries they may look a certain way or even act a certain way, and yes tests can be made sometimes to see if certain mysteries are explainable in any way, but man will never be able to say this is exactly how it was done or this is exactly the way it works.

-_- and then we figure out exactly how things work. Being defeatist about it helps no one.

 

[inquiring mind]

*considers nearly 9 years of trying to find faith unsuccessfully* simple idea, but not simply had. Like the idea of owning a kilogram of gold. Possible? Yes. Easy? No.


-_- and then we figure out exactly how things work. Being defeatist about it helps no one.

Interesting poem in your signature; I like it. I agree there are many over-zealous people who tend to think they have God completely figured out; and not only spiritually… but scientifically as well. Rest assured, I’m not in either category. I’m a simple person, leaning on the ever-lasting arms, and only trying to glorify God with my simplistic comments.

You say you tried to find faith for 9 years unsuccessfully and that it’s not simply had. Maybe that’s because you’ve not tried to simply receive it. To use your analogy, that’s like someone saying, here’s a kilogram of gold and all you have to do is receive it… but, you say no I’ll find my own (yes... hard to do). And, to address your second point, yes and thankfully, scientists do figure out many things… but why would it be so hard to think that it's only as they are revealed to us by an almighty God. I take you at your word when you say no one can outlast you debating, so I’m not going to try, but I’m not taking anything away from science and you don’t have to give it up to have faith in God and His works, whether we are made to understand them or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have creationists ever bothered to even attempt to address this or does this remain a large branch of applied evolution that they continue to ignore?

I tend to shy away from it, myself.

If I walked into a room where my fellow creationists are explaining applications of common descent in modern comparative genomics, I would probably get the same kind of feeling as when I accidentally went into the women's restroom at Walmart the other day.