The genome record has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
This is absolutely false. The genetic evidence is basically the evidence that removes all trace of reasonable doubt from the theory. I'd say that now it is the best evidence available and it often spectacularly confirms what we'd already deduced from other evidence. You've been given multiple links to this evidence. You can't claim it doesn't exist or has nothing to do with evolution if you just ignore what you're given.
If you think it does, please elucidate in your own words, not a link.
You seem to be running scared from addressing this point. Why do you want posters own words when you've been given short pages, written by professionals, and aimed at a popular audience? Why do you think I (or somebody else posting here) are going to do better? Perhaps that's the point.
What's more I did add a couple of examples in my own words to the simple example in the page you'd obviously started to read in
#432.
In
#458 I quoted a significant piece from a page - what value would there be in me repeating it in my own words? Why would I make the effort when you seem to want to make no effort whatsoever, and just go on repeating the same mistakes "there is no evidence", "it isn't proved"?
Regardless, I'll do it here just to see what you're next excuse is going to be.
Here is my summary of the piece in
#458. It outlined a study that looked at the mutations that we observe in the human genome today and (because different mutations occur at different rates) we can plot a frequency pattern of different types of mutations. If it is true that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees, we would expect that to be due to lots and lots of mutations that accumulated over millions of years. We can then look at the differences between human DNA and chimp DNA and look at the pattern of differences there. Apart from the scale (there are obviously many more differences between humans and chimps, than between different humans) the pattern is pretty much exactly the same. In other words, the pattern of differences are exactly that we'd expect if all the difference were due to accumulated mutations.
Creationists like to dismiss genetic
similarities with "common design" (reusing genetic code for the same purpose) but there seems to be no reason at all why a designer would contrive to make all the
differences look exactly like the accumulation of the same sort of mutations we see happening today in the human population.
The other example of evidence (
#432) is from mutated (broken) genes that we find in modern species. There is an example of the vitamin C gene in the article, but I also pointed out that humans have a mutated version of the gene for making egg yoke. We also share several broken olfactory receptor (sense of smell) genes with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans and we can use the exact why in which they are broken, to deduce a family tree (if chimps and humans share a gene with the same mutation, and gorillas and orangutans have different ones, we put chimps and humans as more closely related because the mutation happened in their common ancestor after they diverged from the others).
When we do that, not only do we get
exactly the same family tree as we do from other evidence (genetic and otherwise), there are also
absolutely no 'out of place' mutations at all. There is no deviation from the pattern we'd expect if the family tree is accurate.
These are just small examples of the genetic evidence, just a tiny, tiny glimpse into the totality of the evidence that really does remove rational doubt.
I doubt very much that I've expressed these as well as the original source materials, but I've done what you asked - what reason are you going to use to ignore it this time?
Source material:
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles
Genesis and the Genome (pdf)
