Is there a God Who created the universe? (Part 2)

Continued from part 1....

Human Genes and Ape Genes

Many people often cite the fact that 98% of human and ape genes are similar. Jonathan Wells states that this therefore means that the 2% of our genes which are not similar, would have to account for the differences in our physical features. The reason why this 98% similarity is not proof of common ancestry is because the 2% difference does not include the physical feature genes. Those genes are found in the 98% similarity genes. Therefore, similarity in genes does not prove common ancestry, because in order for it to do so, the differences in our physical features would have to be accounted for in the 2% difference, but it does not. This situation can be compared to a builder who builds various structures. They will design their structures using many of the same ingredients, or parts, such as woods, concrete, steel beams, etc., but just because they use the same ingredients does not mean that the structure will come out looking exactly the same. It appears that God has done the same thing here. He has used the same genes in many different organisms, but despite this, they all look different. So again, gene similarity does not prove common ancestry because organisms can have very different physical features from each other despite the fact that the genes which account for those physcial features are similar.

No missing link, and the archaeopteryx

A large problem with Darwin's theory is the fact that we have never found any missing links. And besides, even if we did find one or two, it would not be enough to effectively argue that Darwin's theory is reality. You would need overwhelming scientific evidence and discovery to deem the theory as fact.

Some people argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link. It is an animal that existed many years ago which has characteristics from both a reptile and a bird. It cannot be considered as a missing link however for a couple of reasons. For one, in order for it to be considered a missing link, you would need to find other transitional forms which would show the gradual progression for how you went from reptile, to then archaeopteryx, to then bird. Evolution is based off of many small variations over time, and a 3 step process of reptile to archaeopteryx to bird is by no means a gradual process of small variations. The other problem with this is the fact that reptilian fossils which would serve as the best "examples" of being ancestors to birds actually appear many years after the archaeopteryx existed, thus making it impossible for them to be ancestors. If the archaeopteryx was truly a missing link, then the reptilian ancestors would have to come before it, but the opposite is true, the reptiles which would best be argued as being reptilian ancestors of the archaeopteryx come many years after, thus disproving the argument. These fossils would need to have come prior to the existence of the archaeopteryx. In order to even attempt to argue that the archaeopteryx is an example of a missing link, the fossil record would have to be the opposite of what it actually is. The archaeopteryx has not provided the missing link that scientists continue to search for.